I'll add my two bits by pointing out a related subject. I shoot, and sometimes hunt with traditional style muzzleloaders, will loose powder and round balls. I'm well aware of, and have great distaine for zip guns, modern muzzleloaders with plastic stocks, stainless steel barrels, internal ingnition and fiber optic sights, using sabotted bullets and pyrodex pellets for powder. I think they're extremely ugly, and make the ignorant think they're shooting a gun that performs just like their centerfire rifle.
I also live in a state that has restricted muzzleloader only hunts to open ingnition, lead bullets, and loose powder. While I may feel this keeps some "purity" to the hunt, I'm not especially comfortable with balkanizing hunters based on small differences in guns. The zip guns, in spite of massive advertizing with wild claims on performance, don't perform particularly better than traditional muzzleloaders. I also feel the traditional shooter spends more time pulling the trigger in the off season, and therefore performs better shooting game. He shoots with confidence in his gun, because he's taken the time to learn what he's capable of doing with it, and when to pass up a shot. This doesn't mean the zip gun hunter can't do the same thing, it's just that guys who buy them are usually looking to extend their hunting season, or get a hunt timed for the rut, if they don't know their gun, it's their fault, not the equipment. The equipment restriction does tend to keep the shallow thinkers out of the muzzleloader hunts though.
The guys shooting long bows have a similar snit with guys shooting sighted compound bows. All the things I've said above apply here too.
My duck hunting partner uses a flapper. It's one you pull the cord on to make the wings flap, motor driven ones aren't legal in Oregon. I've hunted with him with this thing, the jury's still out on whether it helps or not. It is a pain in the ass to set up, and it cost him the price of a dozen good decoys. It's his money though, and as long as I don't have to pull the string, I'm ok with it. He's not afraid to try something that'll help bring birds in, he's also not shy about abandoning what doesn't work, and that may happen with this thing too.He's an ethical hunter, and so am I. I don't see any difference between this thing and a decoy rigged on a string to tip up to add some motion to the water. I think everyone on this site would agree the hardest thing to create with a spread of decoys is the movement a real flock of ducks has. You can have the perfect shape, paint job, etc. but you can't copy the motion of a live bird.
I guess I'm ok with the thing because it requires a human to make it work, don't ask me to justify that one, I don't think I can with any arguement that couldn't be shouted down by traditionalists or modernists. It does require the person to manipulate it, rather than sitting passively in front of his varius robots.
We need to be careful on attacking other hunters though. We can't put the technology jenie back in the bottle, it can only be controlled through legislation, and the government cannot always be trusted though. I don't think flappers, even motorized ones, are causing excessive amounts of ducks to be shot. I think the manufacturers are making outragous claims on these things, just like the zip gun boys are doing. I think the flapper is just an object, the people who buy them are too often the same ones that will shoot at ducks out of range because of the claims made buy the ammo company for the shells they've bought. We all use technology to some degree. I'd enjoy the hell out of a hunt shooting a muzzleloader over wood blocks, while sitting in a wood boat that I'd rowed to the spot, dressed in wool and canvas, but I don't think that takes away from the enjoyment I get from hunting the way I do it now.