We live in a world of technological leaps across almost every aspect of our lives, and while this may come as a surprise, this is not an AI discussion. Technology is creating significant advances inside the hunting industry, where we are not short on new products and innovations.
The strongest innovations we are seeing are in the areas of optics, cameras and drones, all of which can make us more successful. While these things can boost our success in the field, it is important that as we use these technologies, we don’t overstep the line of fair chase.
Because these technologies provide such an advantage in pursuing various wild game species, some states have begun taking steps to restrict certain technologies for hunting use on public and private land. The Idaho Legislature recently passed House Bill 939, which was signed into law April 2. The bill outlaws the use of thermal imaging, night vision and drones to hunt or scout for big game and game birds. It also forbids the use of cellular trail cameras on publicly accessible lands from Aug. 30 through Dec. 31 each year. The legislation was driven by concerns from residents and fish and game officials that increased technology use would impact fair chase and that several years of increased harvest success could result in a reduction of allocated tags across the state for both residents and nonresidents. I congratulate the hunters of Idaho who took the initiative to bring this to their elected officials. This is a great reminder that as hunters we drive conservation advocacy by helping maintain and grow our wild game populations.
This decision raises a broader question: When does technology cross the line between fair chase and unethical hunting? We can all acknowledge that it is illegal and unethical to shoot deer at night with a thermal optic. However, Farmer Brown down the road would probably let you use your thermal for some hog management.
But back to the question at hand. It is important that we sit down as hunters and think this through, because it won’t always be as clear-cut as asking whether night hunting is wrong. For example, say I wound an elk in a western state and use a thermal drone at night to locate it. That’s not outright unethical at first glance, but what if, while searching for my elk, I spot a herd bedded down and the next morning send my buddy in their direction? Not exactly black and white anymore. It may not seem like a big impact on its own, but add enough hunters doing the same thing, plus bad actors, and success rates start climbing year after year while herd numbers trend downward, putting real pressure on wildlife management efforts.
As states across the country begin evaluating technology use against fair chase standards, it is important that we keep in mind how these advances will impact the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. In many cases, I believe certain technologies are reasonable and warranted within fair chase. However, if a product or technology leads to increased harvest rates through its use, we must be willing to self-regulate and push for new rules before we risk real damage to our wild game populations or, worse, lose a species altogether.
Like many of us, I would love nothing more than to suffer from success season after season with a freezer that won’t close. But if we fight technology regulation when the stats from fish and game agencies show a negative impact, we are no different than the anti-hunters who use ballot box science to advance their agenda. That said, this cuts both ways. As a hunting community, we are increasingly fighting off efforts from anti-hunters, and in some cases they will attempt to restrict new technologies as a foothold to close off hunting opportunities altogether. It is our job to know the difference.
The hunting community has always been its own best advocate. That must hold true as technology evolves. We can be curious, we can innovate and we can embrace new tools, but we have to be the ones drawing the line before someone draws it for us.
