Am I Getting Old? Image Stabilized, Cell Trail Cams Too Far?

I initially read your title the wrong way. I thought you were going to be asking if you were getting old BECAUSE you were embracing those technologies. I mean, not having to hike in all the time just to check game cams could be a positive when you're old. Or IS bino's could be a real blessing when you can't hold non-IS bino's still because you're old.
 
My 2 cents, cell cameras ARE too much technology. I personally know people that have changed hunting plans and harvest animals because they saw them on camera. As in, "I know we were going to have a deer drive on such and such property but I just saw a dandy 10-point behind the house so I'm hunting that ridge tonight." Not illegal but just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Like many others, I don't feel as strongly about IS optics but they aren't for me. Want to know how much I limit myself? Most of my optics are Vortex! As some of you point out, I'm not that far removed from hunting with a spear from a cave.
 
My 2 cents, cell cameras ARE too much technology. I personally know people that have changed hunting plans and harvest animals because they saw them on camera. As in, "I know we were going to have a deer drive on such and such property but I just saw a dandy 10-point behind the house so I'm hunting that ridge tonight." Not illegal but just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
For sure. See this practice openly referenced in hunting videos all of the time.
 
If you broke it down by my impromptu ideology 'modern' era (rough estimates)

pre 1894 black powder
repeating arms until 1950
start of modern rifle scopes 1960
trail camera's 1990
rangefinder 1995

That is a lot of innovation in only a short 100 year period.

And in the next 25 years we get
Thermal
cell cams
drones
IS bino's
Phone GPS
eScouting
Facebook

What comes next, who knows? While I don't need a stick and stone, I could do with a pause on innovation for a bit seeing how the last 25 years effects the woods and still the plausible affect they will have in the future.
 
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.
 
Back
Top