It seems like most recent advancements are a question of degrees. And it becomes increasingly difficult to decide where to draw the line when each progression is such a small change but they eventually add up to a big difference. Where in the progression between current tech and some future where we could shoot deer remotely with a thermal drone is the uncrossable line?
I know guys that are vehemently defending their thermal optics. They will claim the thermal optic doesn't really increase their success rate. And yet, they are defensive about it to the point of stating they will continue to use it even if it is made illegal.
More and more, I think we need to draw the line at electronics, period. Quality glass, custom rifles, and modern clothing still rely on a human element to be used proficiently. Electronics take the human element out. Stabilized binos remove the need for practiced and steady hands. Rangefinders take any error out of range estimation. Trail Cameras remove the time and dedication required for scouting. Lighted reticles reduce the level of proficiency required to acquire a cross hair in the heat of the moment. Electronics more than anything else remove the need for skill and practice that traditionally separated success from failure. GPS/Onx seems like a line that cannot be uncrossed, the human safety element of those tools would be impossible to remove.
Are there holes in my reasoning? Most likely, it is after all an evolving opinion, and I have a rangefinder and trail cameras that would be difficult to give up. I do know this; I would rather give up all my electronic hunting aids than lose OTC opportunity. And I'm just old enough and slow enough to adopt new tech, to remember what it was like to hunt without those things.