However, Ortega y Gasset's essay isn't about subsistence hunting. Instead it's about is generally called "sport" or "recreational" hunting, even though we often eat the meat and it may even help us get by economically. If I had to get some meat to avoid starving to death, then I'd use whatever means possible. But that's not what we're discussing, so claiming using technology is OK, because humans have always used technology for obtaining meat, is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant when people want to say long-range hunting is "not hunting." Because people who say that are basically saying "it's OK to use technology as far as I go with it, but not as far as you want to take it." Which is in a word, hypocritical.
A guy making a 300-yard shot with a modern scoped centerfire rifle is using basically the same technology as a guy making a 700-yard shot. The guy making the 700 yard shot is just better at it.
And what you're saying above about "sport" or recreational hunting all goes back to why an individual hunts, and what that individual wants to get out of the hunt. Some want the contest with the animal, and want to defeat its senses the hard way by sneaking in close. Others just want meat for the freezer and don't really care about the challenge or defeating the animal's senses. Neither reason for hunting is "better" or more valid than the other.
