The move to modern weapons is primarily driven by financial related concerns but it is likely reinforced by the fact that it increases hunter participation, especially younger hunters. Homo sapien is the top of the food chain because of its ability to use tools to kill at a distance. I like being at the top of the food chain and personally I'm in favor of getting better at what got us there.
That being said, I also enjoy the experience of a broad array of opportunities to hunt and probably enjoy the more primitive methods the most. That being said, most of the meat in the freezer was harvested with bolt action rifles (in other words, I suck at primitive hunting but love trying anyway).
I feel like the bigger issue is a lack of young hunters in general. Personally, my concern is to get more young hunters and develop their ability to hunt safely as well as ethically/humanely. If they can demonstrate that they can do so at a 1000+ yards, 500 yards, 100 yards, whatever is not something that keeps me up at night.
I will use the best tool for any given season and set of rules that I'm given. I don't have a flintlock, long bow, adze nor do I own an AR or crossbow. I hunt large game with my compound bow (and my recurve if the rules limit me to do so), 209 inline muzzleloader with scope (which will be converted to a red dot soon) and arsenal of bolt-action rifles.
I don't use a long bow because I almost always hunt from an elevated tree stand for archery and prefer to shortest tip-to-tip weapon I can use, preferably with a mechanical release as I know it maximizes my chance to kill humanely when I am archery hunting. That being said, I don't own a crossbow because I feel like I'm proficient enough with a compound bow and the best opportunities that I have for archery hunting do not allow crossbows yet. And if the opportunities I wanted were only available to recurve and longbow hunters, I would hunt my recurve. And once the best opportunities allow x-bows I will likely switch if for no other reason than that I will be too old to draw a 70# compound bow ;-)
I don't use a flintlock or percussion cap inline rifle because I started muzzleloader hunting after the 209's started to dominate that market. I will go to a red dot because I don't expect anything >150yds to be more likely than the opportunities I get <25-50yds where a scope becomes a hindrance and vastly increases my ability to make a mistake. So, for me personally, I know it maximizes my chance to kill humanely when I am ML hunting. I don't personally have an interest to take up flintlocks but I'm sure I would enjoy shooting one.
For me, the non-intuitive part of the luminescent rule for Colorado ML is I feel like fluorescent paint, fiber optics, red dots and illuminated reticles allow ethical hunters to maximize their ability to kill humanely at first/last legal hunting light. I'm not sure if the rule in Colorado is driven by folks not observing first/last legal hunting light, fear that it will motivate more folks to shoot at first/last legal hunting light (for me, this is not intuitive ... most people who are willing to push their luck don't need much of an excuse, they are going to do it anyway) or possibly it is not primitive enough (which I am completely fine with ... but that they also scopes but not fluorescent paint, fiber optics seems backwards in that regard). But I will be more than happy to follow that rule if I ever get the opportunity to ML hunt in Colorado.
I would love to be educated on the motivation for that rule in Colorado. We certainly have our fair share of non-intuitive hunting rules in Texas that need lots of explanation ... aerial and night time hunting of feral hogs (because they will drive deer to extinction left unchecked here), baiting with timed feeders, open seasons on exotic (non-native) animals, etc.
For the record, I fall in the 50-55 yr age bracket and I started thinking about myself as an old dude shortly after I ascended to that rank
