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 ?
This line of argument is absurd. If you use a modern centerfire rifle with a scope, you're using technology to defeat the animal's senses, that's what humans do. If you think you're not, you're mistaken. The animals evolved and developed their defenses without a single predator that could kill them from 100 yards away.
Some acknowledge that and some refuse to based on some romantic notion that they're "really hunting" because they're not using the technology to it's full potential. The idea that a 500 yard shot is "unsporting" while a 200 yard shot is "fair chase" is ridiculous.
I haven't taken a shot farther than 120 yards in the past 20 years. There have been alot of deer killed in that time and the average distance would probably be between 40 and 50 yards with probably 30 percent at less than 30 yards. Deer are certainly far more likely to detect your presence at those distances than at 400 yards plus. I do use scoped rifles sometimes but they certainly aren't critical to my success and I have in fact taken more deer with iron sughted rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders than with scoped. My most used and trusted pair for deer since the 1980's have been a Marlin 336 .30-30 wearing a Weaver K-2.5 and a Winchester M94 ,30-30 wearing a Williams reciever sight in the rear and a lyman ivory bead up front. I've killed more with those two over the years than any others by far. Next in line for most deer killed would be my smoothbore12 gauge Ithaca 37 Deerslayer and my fully rifled 12 gauge Mossberg 500. Both wore irons for the vast majority of deer killed though both did wear Weaver K 2.5's for a time. Currently my 336 wears a 1-4x20 Leupold vx-2. My 94 still wears irons and always will. I've never carried a rangefinder or dialed a scope while deer hunting in my life. Lat year I filled my tags with a Howa 1500 chambered 6.5 Creedmoor and scoped with a 3-9x40Leupold VX-1 just because I wanted t try the new cartridge, One kill was 120 yards and the other was 10 yards on the run. I could have easily killed both my my old 94 . Certainly my equipment is a far cry from the Nightforce/SWFA scoped, turret twisting bolt guns shooting high BC bullets at deer in the next zip code after they've been ranged with a lazer rangefinder. Truth be told, I probably coud have killed 95% of all the deer I've taken in my life with my iron sighted 94 or my iron sighted T/C Hawken.
