You don't have the option of glassing game from afar and using the modern technology of a laser range finder and pricisely dialable scope to shoot a deer 500 - 1000 yards away across a canyon. You've got to get close because there ain't no way you're going to see or shoot it from afar. On the flip side of that, I've hunted the open farmlands of central NY many times with a slug gun. Sure I saw deer across big crop fields that were far out of slug range.
Different terrain types call for different strategies and different skill sets. It's a good idea to be well-versed in more than one of them.
I suppose if the be all and end all is just killing something for you. Do you put any limits at all as to what technology is used or how far away you can kill something and still consider it fair chase ? Suppose for instance some sort of laser gun is in our future. No bullet drop, no wind drift to contend with. A range finder would be pretty superfluous then because no dialing would be required without drop or wind drift so you can just leave it at home.. Would it still be "fair chase" to situate yourself on a mountain overlooking a vast plain with powerful telescope, spot a deer 10 miles out and smoke it with your ACME super deer blaster laser gun ? Did that deer have a snowballs chance in hell of detecting you ? What if we just develop a personal human cloaking device so that game hasn't a chance of seeing, hearing or smelling you so you can just walk right up to any old buck and bash it's head in with a hammer ? Still fair chase ? How far should it go and at what point do you cease to be a "hunter" and become merely a killer ?
That really depends on why you’re hunting in the first place. Are you hunting for fun, for the trophy on the wall, or because you really need the meat? Some cats hunt mice because they’re hungry, and they go for the throat so to speak. Others hunt mice because they’re bored, and they play with the mouse, even letting it try to run away several times, before killing it. I suppose the cat is more concerned with fair chase when it’s not worried about going hungry.
The first time I watched footage of alaskan natives shooting swimming caribou in the back of the head from a boat 10 feet away, it offended my sense of fair chase and sportsmanship. But I reminded myself that these were subsistence hunters, and their objective was to return home with a load of meat using any means necessary. The methods we’re willing to use or accept in our hunting depend on our motive for hunting in the first place.
How badly do we need/want the animal? Are we putting food on the table for the family, or are we leisurely looking for another rack for the wall? Are we playing with our food, like the cat, or are we simply trying to kill a critter so we can eat it. Are we “sport hunting”, or simply hunting? Is the thrill (and risk) of stalking as close as possible more important than making the kill? Again, it depends on why we’re hunting. I suppose hunters 150 years ago balked at modern technology, just as you are. When smokeless powder became popular, blackpowder hunters probably questioned whether it’s still hunting if you can kill the animal from 200 yards away with smokeless cartridges, “where the animal can’t even detect your presence.” It’s all relative.
If we’re hunting simply for the spoils of the kill (meat, hide, trophy, etc), then a laser beam a mile away works, as long as we can retrieve the animal before the meat spoils or other scavengers/hunters get to it. If we’re hunting for the sport, the experience, the challenge, or the thrill of beating the animal’s senses as a hunter, then placing limitations on yourself and your equipment makes sense. We each have different reasons for hunting, and I’ve found myself on both sides of the line at different times.
Very well stated and written. Thanks for taking the time. My above post was not in any way, shape or form directed towards you.
