This column is being written early in 2026, when, like thousands of others, I’m sorting through the morass that has become the process for applying for hunting tags in the various Western states. The sad fact is that you almost have to be a deep-pockets lawyer to figure it out, or employ a tag application service to do it for you. Then if you do draw — good luck with that, and a topic for another day — nonresident tag and license costs have skyrocketed, and even in the best units, unless you spend big dough to hire an outfitter to get you on private ground or who can spend weeks scouting, success rates for “glamour” species like elk and mule deer pursued on public lands are, in many cases, shockingly low. Many average Joes have given up on the dream of hunting the West.
Which brings me to the concept of fair chase and what it means today. No doubt about it, its meaning has morphed somewhat from its origins. Because of the incredible cost of hunting in states or on land which you do not live on or own, there’s a growing attitude that unless an animal is harvested, you’ve wasted your time and money. Some feel like if they’ve paid four figures for a license and tag, then many thousands for an outfitted hunt, they are actually “owed” an animal. Which of course is not true. Or is it?
Which segues to the topic of modern technology and its use as an aid in hunting, which is increasingly tied to the concept of fair chase. The first official use of the term is in the fifth article of the Boone & Crockett Club’s constitution in 1888. This was back in the days when laws governing the taking of wildlife for both food and sport were scarce, and B&C officials knew that without increased protection of game populations via regulation and, just as importantly, acceptance of hunter conduct and ethics, the growing human population would eventually turn against hunters.
While “fair chase” is a subjective concept, there are some general tenets all can agree on. Articulated by both the Boone & Crockett and Pope & Young clubs, these include the emphasis on hunter skill and the use of modern technology only if it does not permit the hunter to take unfair advantage of the animal. Of course, “unfair advantage” is also somewhat subjective. At its core, the animal must have a realistic chance to escape by using their individual senses of sight, hearing, and smell.
As technology increases hunter efficiency, hunters now must spend less time afield scouting and hunting than if it is not employed. Think how scouting cameras and smartphone hunting apps have significantly reduced the time required to be afield to acquire the same knowledge, or how rifle/scope/load combinations have made taking animals a half-mile away or more feasible, reducing the skills needed to stalk closer. Or how crossbows equipped with variable-power riflescopes used in archery-only seasons make taking animals a football field away possible. Or how e-bikes designed for trail riding are being used to access roadless backcountry areas by more and more hunters annually, reducing the time and effort required to get there, as well as shrinking the areas in which game animals can live undisturbed. The list goes on.
In an August, 2016 essay entitled “Where Do You Draw the Line? Technology in Hunting,” author Paul McCarney discusses the issue in a very thoughtful way. Essentially, he defines ethical hunting as using any gear that helps a hunter make a quick, clean, ethical kill, with the exception of using technology that gives one an unfair advantage over game, and in so doing reduces the need for practiced skill, thus undermining fair chase. And remember, this was written a decade ago, before the lightspeed advances we’ve seen in hunting-related technology over that time. I urge you to read this excellent work.
It’s not just critical that hunters themselves continue to advocate for, and adhere to, the fair chase doctrine. In 2021, Statista reported that of the 309 million Americans ages 6 years and older, 25.87 million — just 8.4%— participated in some form of hunting. In 2019, Responsive Management reported in “Americans Attitudes Toward Hunting. Fishing, Sport Shooting, and Trapping” that 80% of nonhunting Americans approved of “legal” hunting. Other surveys have also shown that, when told of some of the latest technology employed by hunters, the responses turned negative. In a September 16, 2022 article in the Cowboy State Daily, Mark Heinz reported on a 2018 hunt in which the shooter, armed with a .50 caliber rifle, shot an antelope at 1,954 yards, then sent a video of it to Muley Fanatics. “We told him (the hunter) that is not something we endorse,” Josh Coursey told Cowboy State Daily. Coursey is a co-founder and was, until tapped in 2025 to join the Trump administration, president and CEO of Muley Fanatics. “Shooting from 1,954 yards isn’t fair chase,” he said.
You cannot stop technological innovation. After all, today’s younger generations have never known a world without it. As it continues to creep into the world of sport hunting, we all need to be aware of not only how it affects the entire experience for the hunter, but also how the nonhunting public perceives its inclusion. For me as a hunter, there needs to be a sense of accomplishment when I punch a tag. That comes from the time and effort spent preparing for, and then undertaking, a hunting trip. The last thing I want to do is take the “fair” out of fair chase.
As McCarney wrote, “It’s fine to adopt new strategies and products that increase our chances of success, but in doing so, let’s not lose sight of the importance in the chance to be unsuccessful, too.”
