Yeti GOBOX Collection

What do yall think of the new Garmin Sight Ethical?

S

SwampLander

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
77
Stirring the pot a bit. What are thoughts on the new garmin sight with range finder? Def maximizes lethality IMO. Lets not consider price because its outrageous as far as my tiny budget is concerned. But if it was the cost of a good archery sight and range finder say 400 bucks would you buy it. Just wanting to spark conversation. One thing I always think about when talking ethics and technology is that in the past humans always hunted with the bets technology they had at their disposal. At some points it was a spear then bow then rifle with numerous weapons in-between; until now. Why is it more ethical to reduce your lethality would it not be more ethical to kill the animal the most efficient way possible? Just food for thought I am an avid archer and prefer hunting with my bow just felt like asking this question to this crowd.
 
I don't think most people will argue on the point of technology making it easier to quickly and sufficiently kill animals is bad. I think that is just a matter of taking the hunt out of hunting. Missing is part of hunting. Practicing with your weapon so that you are proficient is part of hunting. Technology is great but there is a joy in the struggle as well.
 
I wont be owning one, but I'd be a hypocrite if i said much cause i use technology on every hunt, from high end long range optics, including range finders, to state of the art clothing and shelter materials. I use GPS, electronic mapping software and trail cameras .

Once again, where do you draw the line.....
 
Seems that technology in archery is going to keep progressing, and that this is going to come into direct conflict with harvest quotas in many units. Most western states allow you to use a bow in the rut for elk and hunt for a longer season, because a bow is a handicap. Eventually we may get to a point where the number of tags in archery units will have to be decreased and seasons shortened or new traditional only seasons will have to be created. You can already see this trend in CO where for many units hunter success rates are much higher in archery seasons than rifle seasons.

I don't so much as see it as a moral issue as a simple cause and effect more technology = fewer tags, shorter seasons. If everyone had to hunt with a trad bow or a hawken rifle and we closed a lot of roads to motorized travel seasons across the west would be extended and more tags would be issued.
 
wllm1313 said:
Seems that technology in archery is going to keep progressing, and that this is going to come into direct conflict with harvest quotas in many units. Most western states allow you to use a bow in the rut for elk and hunt for a longer season, because a bow is a handicap. Eventually we may get to a point where the number of tags in archery units will have to be decreased and seasons shortened or new traditional only seasons will have to be created. You can already see this trend in CO where for many units hunter success rates are much higher in archery seasons than rifle seasons.

I don't so much as see it as a moral issue as a simple cause and effect more technology = fewer tags, shorter seasons. If everyone had to hunt with a trad bow or a hawken rifle and we closed a lot of roads to motorized travel seasons across the west would be extended and more tags would be issued.
Click to expand...

I missed the other thread Oh so sorry for speaking out of turn. However I was wanting to debate ethics and tech in hunting more than anything. Its a good conversation to me and others so if it bores you move on. You wllm1313 bring up a great point increasing the harvest of archers can translate to less tags. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot here. Also knowing the range still does not mean some people can hit at 60 yards it takes a lot more than simply knowing the range. I say 60 because its my max hunting shot. I know there are many archers far better than me.
 
I agree with the sentiment that at some point, tech will result in lower tag numbers. I don't know that this sight gets it there, just cause the up front work is still there, and shot execution will still be critical. But, I can see it getting there one day in the not so distant future. Unfortunately, not everyone shares the ethics most on this forum do.
 
So this would be illegal in Colorado. Right? Along those same lines, Colorado also keeps their black powder season fairly primitive (no scopes, no sabots). That's probably the key to technology management. States that have a ton of deer and hogs can be fairly relaxed while western states can be more restrictive. Or they could adjust the hunting tools allowed based on the species.
 
I don't see anything that would make it unethical. It's not even worth discussing.
 
Last edited:
There’s an ethical argument to be made that it increases lethality and minimizes error which could result in wounded game.

But that argument is not very compelling. Lethality and minimizing of wounded and suffering game is only one of many considerations for hunting ethics.

Otherwise, there would be no archery or primitive weapon season.

It isn’t legal in many western states. It’s probably legal here but won’t make it in my inventory.

It is amazing technology. We will continue to see improvements in gear technology. We will continue to face these ethical decisions and their implications (such as legal restrictions or less hunting opportunities).

I won’t look down on someone for legally using these technologies. But I ask that they consider their decision, it’s effect on their personal ethic, and it’s compatibility with their views on fair chase.
 
I think the key feature that is missed by many is that there are areas in the country where archery is supposed to be a primitive hunting method in which case this device definitely violates those ideals. In other areas archery is used because it allows you to safely hunt in an area that would not be conducive to rifle hunting, in those areas this devices is perfectly acceptable.

I think game managers need to evaluate the purpose/intent of their seasons and act accordingly.
 
Some of us neanderthals think that bowhunting equipment should be constructed of only wood and animal parts. The reality is that part of what makes hunting fun and enjoyable is the development of technology and then learning to be proficient in employing the new technology. Furthermore, a key reason for hunting seasons is to harvest wild game as an element of wildlife management. The improved technology allows for more success and less wounding and losing of animals.
Plus you gotta admit that such devices are innovative ... and just pretty cool.
 
There are many, many other factors in archery hunting that can cause you to miss an animal even if you know the exact yardage (anchor point, follow through, clipping a tiny twig). For me where I draw the line in the sand as far as using technology goes, is if the technology removes any part of the hunt for me then I don't want anything to do with it. Having a range finder built into a sight wouldn't take anything away because I'm still connected to the bow and I have to make the shot.

Muzzleloaders are another weapon that is advancing way past the old flintlocks and crossed fingers hoping the gun would go off, to now a 200 yard shot isn't out of line.
 
Ethical VS Sporting

I think at some point the meanings of the words ethical and sporting were combined or confuzzled, to a detriment. I use this exact argument when talking about ground slooshing grouse. How can one argue that taking a more difficult ( flushed ) shot, which has a higher probability of wounding the animal, is more ethical? More sporting? Sure; it takes more skill to make the shot on the flushed grouse, but not more ethical. The same idea can be applied to a sight such as this.

I can understand the argument that more efficiency is killing game may result in reduced tags, but game managers already factor in estimated killed-but-not-recovered statistics into archery tag allocations. Just because you become more effective at making a shot does NOT mean more animals die. Its entirely possible that fewer animals die because there are less unrecovered animals. Unfortunately, its impossible to collect this data to make a scientific analysis of the argument.
 
I know that this sight does nothing to help in the hunt until the moment of truth. Not to diminish the moment of truth but IMO in is a small part of the hunt. That being said it will not be finding it's way onto my bow because for myself it's to much tech.

I also don't want to trust it to be there and be right at the moment of truth. I'm sure it has been RnD'd out the wazoo but still.
 
vanish said:
Unfortunately, its impossible to collect this data to make a scientific analysis of the argument.
Click to expand...

My point was more that this is just another small advance on the path towards reduced tags. Yes, there is no possible way to scientifically predict how something like this will effect a game population, especially given yearly fluctuations and the myriad of things that effect herds. Yet, every piece of technology we develop make us more effective and lethal, and if success rates jump then tags allocation will decrease, there are only so many elk in the woods. If the average hunter has a 15% success rate and this bumps it up to 15.001% and another technology bumps it to 15.002% it will go unnoticed, but eventually those bumps will compound and game managers will have to do something because a 1000 hunters are killing 160 elk instead of 150 each year. It might mean less days in the field per person, less total hunters in the field, etc.

I'm not a Luddite, I'm not suggesting we bane all improvements to hunting gear or anything like that, and I'm not suggesting using tech is unethical, I'm just saying everything has repercussions.

"Few educated people realize that the marvelous advances in technique made during recent decades are improvements in the pump, rather than the well."- Leopold
 
Last edited:
One of the more recent meateater podcasts had a similar discussion on technological advances. It is only in hunting that we even discuss the "ethical" side of this.

Nearly all sports have rules on equipment that balance the playing field and make things comparable over the years. Is it "ethical" to have a 1st basemen's glove that is longer than 13"? Is it against the rules? Yes. Same with a TON of things. Weights of bats, size of the barrel, height and diameter of the bucket in basketball, amount of air in a football.

As technology advances and the amount of game stays the same they are going to have to limit things not from an ethical perspective, but because you still can't give out 500 archery tags if the success rate has gone from 15% in 1990 to 50% in 2020. Game animals don't grow on trees (other than squirrels), they are a finite resource and as we get better and better at harvesting them they either have to cut back on tags they give out or put limits on the technology that can be used to hunt them.

The only thing that I think would have to be considered is what I added to the other thread. If you are just converting a wounding loss to a successfully harvested animal you aren't changing the number of animals that die. I personally am for just about anything that helps avoid wounding loss. Whether this device would do that is debatable though. Some will say that it would just encourage people to take long shots they otherwise might not have attempted and still result in plenty of wounded animals. Others would say that two of the biggest causes of wounding loss are guessing the wrong range on an animal or accidently looking at the wrong pin and this would eliminate those.

All things considered I think I just wasted 10 minutes typing out a reply.

My 2 cents. Nathan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cav1
Why I Always Carry Survival Gear
2 3
Replies
59
Views
10K
Ghillieman
G
havgunwilltravel
Hunting New Caledonian Rusa
Replies
13
Views
4K
----
?
Big Fin
Worth Reading
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
7K
JoseCuervo
JoseCuervo
E
Killing Bambi
Replies
15
Views
3K
dgibson
D

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,012
Messages
1,943,572
Members
34,962
Latest member
tmich05

Share this page

Back
Top