I just finished reading my latest issue of SAFARI from SCI. I was taken back a little when I read so many ads about everything from precision guided firearms to Barrett monster rifles to tracking scopes and rifles good to 1200 yards. It seemed to be a little too much hi-tech in this issue. I realize I'm kind of old school, but really. You need a scope which allows others to see the sight picture along with you. Whatever happened to hunt in the word hunting. I really like the way SCI protects hunters rights around the world, and the many worthwhile conservation projects. I'm just having a difficult time grasping all this high-tech stuff. I read the other day some states are having to consider game laws about using drones for hunting and scouting purposes. I'm rambling now. Anyone else have an opinion on this. I hate to be the lone duck on the pond.

I'm with you on this .

Me too. Where's the skill?

It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

If your goal is to hunt and shoot your game at closer ranges(what ever they are)

Spear hunters, think bow hunters shoot to far, bow hunters think gun hunters, shoot to far. hand gun hunters then rifle hunters are unfair

Where does it stop for me if it is a legal means of taking game and you employ it I have no problem with it.

A game animal killed by a club or a long range shot doesn't care it is still dead.

I like the challenge of getting close but like the capability to take a longer shot if needed.

Longer to me with a rifle is out to 600 yards could be closer or farther depending on the person.

I like to keep things simple.I use a Scope with a plex reticle and standard turrets.I sight it in for 200 yd s and have a windage and elevation chart for hold over taped to the stock.I use a Range finder and consider it to be a must tool so I can cleanly kill my game.I still rely on a compass and a topo chart to find my way about.I really don`t care about shooting much past 400 yds and would rather stalk much closer.In fact I try to get close enough to use a Revolver if I can.Its a different World we live in today,than when I started hunting 58 years ago.

Some technology is fine, but at what point do we lose the concept of hunting?

If it were legal, would internet hunting be okay? That was tried here in Texas and hunters said NO in a big way, so Texas and I think every other state passed laws forbidding such practices.

As the average age of hunters increases, and the recruitment of young people into hunting declines, where is the line drawn deciding where technology has replaced any actual skill or knowledge?

Just my opinion, nothing more, but the new hunters that are joining our ranks are buying and using every new gadget/technology on the market. Now are they doing that to be a better hunter or is the technology merely a shortcut, so that a person does not have to spend real time learning how to hunt.

The issue I have is that guys buy bows that have the capability to shoot X number of yards or rifles and scopes that can shoot to 1000 yards and they call it good. They don't put in the time to become profecient with em, they rely too heavily on equipment that is far more capable than the user and they go out and sling arrows or lead. I see it every year and it makes me want to puke

Here we sit complaining about technology.....using the internet and computers (in my case a smarty) to bitch

Funny

I disagree with the premise of this thread.

Hunting is all about technology and has been since day one. Nature didn't give us fangs, claws, great strength or fast legs. Without the ability to conceive, make and use tools to overcome our physical limitations (a reasonable definition of technology) we, as a species, would be barely able to catch a mouse.

Use of technology, which goes back to pre-history, has allowed our speices to become the apex predator that it is.

Can somebody please tell me exactly what form of technology reduces or eliminates the need for skill? In most cases modern technology simply swaps one skill set for another. Or you have to master 2 skills to do what used to take 1.

Somebody mentioned the "1000 yard rifle." What, exactly, sets that mythical 1000 yard rifle apart from granpaw's "thutty-thutty?" (Which was, in it's day, high tech wonder with its high energy smokeless powder.) Is the "1000 yard" rifle gyro stabilized? Does it have self-guided, meat-seeking projectiles? Can a shooter just point it in the general direction of the target and be assured of a hit? No, it's simply a powerful, precision made rifle based on a 130 year old design. It may be better able to hit and kill a game animal 1000 yards away but doing so requires a high degree of marksmanship skill. All that power and precision comes at a cost. A "1000 yard rifle" is heavy, cumbersome, expensive, time consuming and generally unpleasant to shoot. If somebody wants to pay the $$$ to buy one and put in the time to learn how to use it to its full potential, more power to them. I'll just stick to my .270 and figure out how to get a bit closer to my target.

A remember reading an article in the 1960's about the newly invented compound bow. It was said to have the killing power and accuracy of an M16 rifle (really!) Concerns were raised that the compound bow would ultimately lead to the end of bowhunting as we knew it. It didn't happen. Today's bows look like props from a science fiction movie and shoot carbon fibre arrows at great speed. But for all of the advances it's still a limited range weapon that's heavier, more cumbersome, slower and more complicated to shoot than an old recurve. One sets of skills substituting for another. A slight advantage gained at a substantial cost.

There are a lot of gadgets out these days there but how many of them are truely useful and actually reduce the need for basic hunting skill? Most of the time they turn out to be just more stuff to carry around. (Remember those handheld infrared game trackers?) In many instances today's technology is reflective of conditions that have changed over the years and are not simply a 'crutch.' GPS is a good example. A compass may have been all that Grandad needed but chances are he didn't have to worry so much about zealously guarded property lines back in his day. A GPS (and the skill to use it to its full potential) will help today's hunter make full use of his territory and keep him out of trouble.

I'm grateful for the choices we have today. Using little more than a bolt action rifle and a sharp knife I've killed hundreds (and hundreds and hundreds) of deer as well as scores of other critters. I've also seen others geared up like a Cabelas mannequin or somebody off the pages of Soldier Of Fortune and if that's what trips their trigger, more power to them.

Technology is a method of performing work. It is inanimate and has no inherent good or evil.

High end rifle optics are not hunting technology, they are shooting technology.

Big, I am a rifle loonia and have shot and do shoot a whole lot more than the typical modern couch potatoe.
I have watched a few of the outdoor shows, but stopped when I saw an episode of "worst" of the West where some jackass stumbled upon a mule deer at 500 yds and then backtracked so he could shoot the deer at over 700 yds. Total horseshit. Why ? So he could then go on to "testify" that if you buy this gun w/ this ammo and this scope, all you have to do is dial in the range and pull the trigger. That easy.
And the goreons believe it.
I am not against technology. I am against the marketing (lying)about it to Hua victims who are too lazy and stupid to know any better.
One of the new Burris ads (on paper) shows the rifle scope ranging an Elk at 497 yards and the shot taking place in less than 1 second. Do you really believe brainchild (techno junkie) obama supporter can make that happen? He does

quote:

Can somebody please tell me exactly what form of technology reduces or eliminates the need for skill?

Really simple, when an experienced person uses technology to enhance the skills they have already developed, there is not a problem.

The problem begins with the inexperienced/neophyte that uses or attempts to use technology to make up for or replace lack of experience/skill!

It is the age old argument, nothing more. So, if we don't want or 'need' it ( like any caliber over 30 in north America), should we ban it? Attempt to make the people who use it feel like lesser people? Tell them they are sissies or unethical? Remove them from hunting, since our numbers are growing so much already? I agree with p dog shooter. As long as it is legal, have at it. It may not be for me, but everything is not about 'me'.

Damn slippery slope, if you ask me. If we are just getting opinions, fine, but we need to closely watch the what do we do about it'.

When I started this thread I really did'nt know how to feel about the new technology that's showing itself in the hunting field. After reading some of your comments, it gives me food for thought. As hunters we need to stand united and not be divided along some lines such as technology. I know how I like to hunt, and other folks hunt like they want. As long as it's responsible, more power to us all.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

Really simple, when an experienced person uses technology to enhance the skills they have already developed, there is not a problem.

The problem begins with the inexperienced/neophyte that uses or attempts to use technology to make up for or replace lack of experience/skill!

Craz.....I agree with you

WOW

I agree we hunters must stick together or get picked off, one group ( hound hunters, baiting, etc.) at a time. I reckon we each make our own choices regarding tech stuff. For example, I love my lighted scope reticles, but I won't use a trail camera to "pattern" deer...

I am not against new technology.How ever it does not replace skills if not used correctly.What "I" prefer is close encounters with game.The stalk to me is as or more important than the kill.To each their own.

There is really no perfect answer. A lot of new technology really bothers me. Especially, what bothers me is
guys shooting animals from 1200+ yards. To me that takes the hunting out of it. Now, having said this, I am
somewhat of a hipocrite. I use a scoped rifle. Shouldn't I be using a 30-30 with iron sites?

I think there needs to be a balance. At some point, I believe we will go too far. I am not exactly sure what this will be. It will always be open for debate.

I had a friend that wanted to come to my area to hunt. He wanted to shoot a couple doe antelope and a cow elk.
It seemed as if His biggest concern was if he could shoot them long range. I 100% disagree with this thought process. If you can get closer, why not do it? Are you hunting or target practicing?

There is my rant. I guess I will return to my ballistic charts, shopping for a new scope, better rifle, high end optics etc.....

I had a friend, now departed, who was a great military rifle shooter. He earned the gold Distinguished Rifleman Badge and wore the President's Hundred tab. Then all of a sudden he stopped competing with service rifles. Instead, he took up flintlocks and began competing in traditional blackpowder matches. I was amazed and I asked he why he had given up competing with the high power rifle. His reply was that winning modern matches had become more dependent on the equipment and less dependent on the shooter. Traditional blackpowder competition with the centuries old flintlock designs meant winning was all up to the shooter and that was what he liked about it.

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

Really simple, when an experienced person uses technology to enhance the skills they have already developed, there is not a problem.

The problem begins with the inexperienced/neophyte that uses or attempts to use technology to make up for or replace lack of experience/skill!

Craz.....I agree with you

WOW

Yup! Folks that want to use the computer or their pocketbooks to short cut the learning curve are an embarrassment to the sport.

LIBERTY: The freedom from arbitrary control.

Anyone can use any means of technology legal. Anything else is tyranny. We start legislating "rules" for our sport based on what WE deem as "correct "where does it stop? Just my opinion.

Perry

quote:

We start legislating "rules" for our sport based on what WE deem as "correct "where does it stop?

So, with that comment in mind, does that mean you were in favor of the "Internet" hunting concept?

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

We start legislating "rules" for our sport based on what WE deem as "correct "where does it stop?

So, with that comment in mind, does that mean you were in favor of the "Internet" hunting concept?

"In favor", not really to a weak no.
Do I have a problem with someone "hunting" like that, no.
Would I want to stop someone form doing it, no.
Legislating against it, no.

Would i use it to kill raccoons, hogs and coyotes, YES!!!!

Perry

quote:

Legislating against it, no.

Well, I for one am glad that legislation was enacted to keep it from becoming a reality.

The increase in technology can diminish the opportunity to hunt. Here in Utah, our hunting tags are limited. Any increase in technology which allows hunters to be more successful will reduce hunting permits. Shooting 700+ with a rifle, 100+ with archery, and 300+ with muzzleloaders is reducing everyone's opportunity to hunt in my state. Wound rates can also increase with farther shots, which in turn means less animals are counted at the end of the season, thus further reducing permits the following year.

At some point in time, for species which struggle, hunters need to look at curbing technology. Watching a guy set up a 50 BMG on a steel table to shoot at a mule deer buck over 1,700 yards away was an eye opener for me. He wounded the deer with "shrapnel", but never tried to look for it.

So it comes down to where one wound draw the line. For some that would be a long-bow and for others it is anything-goes. Seems like there should be some common sense in the middle.

quote:

Originally posted by Jason P:
Are you hunting or target practicing?

+1

The problem comes in the form of do you want politicians controlling your sport more than they already do. Technology IS a good thing for the sport. It has brought us warmer clothes, better optics, range finders, more comfortable boots, phones that you can take to other countries, rifles that shoot tighter groups, etc, etc. For every law you pass you lose a liberty. If the "other" team is controlling the enforcement of all our "good and necessary" laws they can be used against us as hunters. I do not trust any politicians or law enforcement officers. So we decide we will pass legislations to restrict what a VERY small part of our community will do. BAD IDEA. Just look what they did with the lead shot ban. That was hardly about animal protection, it was a move to limit hunter's rights. That is one small example that comes to mind.

What technology is by definition is the system used to solve a specific problem using applied science. So a hunter is wet and cold....along comes the invention of the blind, or rain wear. Or feather flecked arrows don't fly well in wet weather in comes fletching waterproofer. An elephant is too big to use one person or one knife on...

For all you purest out there, here's the challenge. Hunt this year with only your God given weapons in the hunting outfit you were born in. Please post reports, no pictures please.


Perry

Some forms of technology are reasonable, setting at a computer and having a gun 100's or even thousands of miles away having a rifle remotely fire and kill an animal is not reasonable. Most people agree with that, to the point that most or all states outlawed before it even got started, which, most people feel was a good thing.

No one is trying to be a purest that I can see. What I am seeing is you are more concerned about government control and your concerns or phobia over too much government interference.

As far as I know, most people do not want any more government interference in their life than is necessary. I also know, as do most folks, that a certain amount of government interference/involvement is needed to prevent such things as internet hunting/shooting turkeys off the roost/spotlighting deer/establishing open-closed seasons on game animals and several other aspects concerning hunting from destroying our ability to hunt.

So far folks have just been giving their opinions on various forms of technology and its merits or detracting factors for use in the field.

I wouldnt mind a GPS device just for shits and giggles, but to me, technology in the field is best used for lens coatings and garment insulation. Got my gun, got my bullets, got my knife, screw it, Im going hunting!!

quote:

Originally posted by perry:
Hunt...in the...outfit you were born in....no pictures please.
Perry

....................

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Some forms of technology are reasonable, setting at a computer and having a gun 100's or even thousands of miles away having a rifle remotely fire and kill an animal is not reasonable. Most people agree with that, to the point that most or all states outlawed before it even got started, which, most people feel was a good thing.

No one is trying to be a purest that I can see. What I am seeing is you are more concerned about government control and your concerns or phobia over too much government interference.

As far as I know, most people do not want any more government interference in their life than is necessary. I also know, as do most folks, that a certain amount of government interference/involvement is needed to prevent such things as internet hunting/shooting turkeys off the roost/spotlighting deer/establishing open-closed seasons on game animals and several other aspects concerning hunting from destroying our ability to hunt.

So far folks have just been giving their opinions on various forms of technology and its merits or detracting factors for use in the field.

No phobia here, just the reality that if you open yourself up to regulation the end result is over regulation. I do not want to see that in the hunting world.

Think about this though. You say the states have passed laws regarding internet hunting. They did it before it was even a "problem". To me, that is a problem. Obviously we have to have regulations, as you stated a few of the ones that are beneficial, and many more for that matter. I am not against laws and regulations that are beneficial to the sport itself and it's key component, the animals. I just don't want to see our sport over regulated on something that is based on my opinion verses your opinion, ie. what is too technologically advanced.

Perry

I can envision day, when we could buy robotic animal that looks and walks and makes sounds like a live one and we are gonna use it to get to live animals in close range.
Technology will make us so successful that we will probably be able to draw elk and deer tag only once in our lifetime.
That is what all the technology will do to us.
Scary thoughts.
Too bad we can't put some sensible limits on the technology in hunting industry.

Perry, we are going to simply have to agree to disagree. In my opinion your concerns have nothing to do with the future of hunting or how hunting/hunters are perceived by the public in general, your entire concern is centered around government involvement nothing more/nothing less.

I don't believe any of us want to see anymore government interference in our lives, period. But it seems that it would not bother you if laws against spot lighting deer were overturned, or all bag and possession limits were done away with. What else would you like to see done away with so there is less government involvement concerning how "Hunters" go about their business?

Civilized societies have to have laws/rules or there is anarchy. The discussion concerns some folks opinions about technology and hunting. No one is really calling for laws limiting the use of technology, unless it is something like internet hunting. Most folks are just stating their ideas about the need for so much technology and what it is doing to hunting/the concept of hunting in general.

Laws are a fact of life, simply because humans as a species can not/will not police itself.

I don't want anymore useless/unenforceable laws enacted concerning hunting, unless it is a situation like the whole internet hunting BS.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Perry, we are going to simply have to agree to disagree. In my opinion your concerns have nothing to do with the future of hunting or how hunting/hunters are perceived by the public in general, your entire concern is centered around government involvement nothing more/nothing less.

I don't believe any of us want to see anymore government interference in our lives, period. But it seems that it would not bother you if laws against spot lighting deer were overturned, or all bag and possession limits were done away with. What else would you like to see done away with so there is less government involvement concerning how "Hunters" go about their business?

Civilized societies have to have laws/rules or there is anarchy. The discussion concerns some folks opinions about technology and hunting. No one is really calling for laws limiting the use of technology, unless it is something like internet hunting. Most folks are just stating their ideas about the need for so much technology and what it is doing to hunting/the concept of hunting in general.

Laws are a fact of life, simply because humans as a species can not/will not police itself.

I don't want anymore useless/unenforceable laws enacted concerning hunting, unless it is a situation like the whole internet hunting BS.

I understand the direction of the discussion and I don't think we are agreeing or disagreeing on anything really, merely discussing technology and it's influences on hunting and hunting regulations.

I'm a little confused by your question/comment on spotlighting and limits and me wanting them overturned??? What are you talking about and when did I say anything about those?

Perry

quote:

I'm a little confused by your question/comment on spotlighting and limits and me wanting them overturned??? What are you talking about and when did I say anything about those?

You didn't say anything about those, but you did say that not outlawing internet hunting would not have bothered you that much or am I mistaken.

Are you or are you not the same person that is worried about any intervention in any way by the government, or am I mistaken about that also?

So just taking things to the next level, if a group of folks petitioned TP&W to remove the restrictions for spotlighting/road hunting etc. etc. etc. something that would remove part of the governments intervention in your life, you would not support it?

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

I'm a little confused by your question/comment on spotlighting and limits and me wanting them overturned??? What are you talking about and when did I say anything about those?

You didn't say anything about those, but you did say that not outlawing internet hunting would not have bothered you that much or am I mistaken.

Are you or are you not the same person that is worried about any intervention in any way by the government, or am I mistaken about that also?

So just taking things to the next level, if a group of folks petitioned TP&W to remove the restrictions for spotlighting/road hunting etc. etc. etc. something that would remove part of the governments intervention in your life, you would not support it?

You are not mistaken, I would not have been bothered by the internet law not being passed.

Yes you are mistaken about me being worried about any gov't intervention in any way in my life.

I would not support it.


Perry

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
I can envision day, when we could buy robotic animal that looks and walks and makes sounds like a live one and we are gonna use it to get to live animals in close range.
Technology will make us so successful that we will probably be able to draw elk and deer tag only once in our lifetime.
That is what all the technology will do to us.
Scary thoughts.
Too bad we can't put some sensible limits on the technology in hunting industry.

...but you are missing out on the best part. If nothing shows up you can shoot your real life decoy .

Perry

quote:

Yes you are mistaken about me being worried about any gov't intervention in any way in my life.

Sure don't seem that way, especially when you follow the above statement with this one:

quote:

I would not support it.

Looks to me like someone that is worried/concerned about government intervention in their life.

Other than a couple of comments by others concerning outlawing certain technology, it seems like most folks are simply concerned with how some technologies are having a negative effect on hunting in general.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Yes you are mistaken about me being worried about any gov't intervention in any way in my life.

Sure don't seem that way, especially when you follow the above statement with this one:

quote:

I would not support it.

Looks to me like someone that is worried/concerned about government intervention in their life.

Other than a couple of comments by others concerning outlawing certain technology, it seems like most folks are simply concerned with how some technologies are having a negative effect on hunting in general.

Please explain. Actually, scratch that. We'll agree to disagree...or disagree to disagree...about strange double negative sentence structures of off the topic questions...that were never mentioned...I guess.

Perry

Here's an interesting question the op brings up (I personally have never heard of this). Using a drone for scouting. In theory isn't that the same as a game cam or the new plot watchers. And how is that different than asking a ranch hand where he has seen game. It is all 2nd party scouting isn't it??? Where is the line drawn and who draws it?

Don't some states outlaw hunting in teams with radios?

Perry