I agree with limiting tech to preserve opportunity and QUALITY. Regarding technology, North American market hunters already proved that technology from over a century ago is sufficient to drive the species we hunt near the brink of extinction, and regulated hunting with some degree of a fair chase ethic allowed these populations to grow back to where they are now so that we may have the opportunity to sustainably hunt them.
One clear example of the effect of technology is that in states that have legalized crossbows in archery season, the percent of archery harvest by crossbows is over 70% in a number of states (Ohio and Vermont are a couple of the top of my head). However, not only can technology have an impact on raw harvest numbers, but I believe the more obvious effect in many places is reduced QUALITY, since, combining modern weapons with technology such as cell cams, far fewer bucks survive to reach their peak size, and bucks that do survive tend to be lower scoring deer that have been purposely passed. Thus, to even have "big" deer, the best "technology" is actually just exclusive access, since it's most important to protect bucks from the hunting tools we've already allowed if you want to kill them at their peak. A consequence of this exclusive access is that if those with exclusive access don't generally have the time to kill or desire to kill the required number of antlerless deer to keep the population where the biologists want it so the biologists increase tag numbers or allow more effective hunting methods, which mostly results in the deer in accessible places getting crushed.
Out west, I think the effect on quality is probably from modern rifles/bows and range finding technology combined with improvement in transportation/tech (modern trucks, E bikes, UTVs, GPS) making it extremely difficult for the top class animals to make it through the season unless access is limited through tag numbers or access. The reason that hunter success in many places is stagnant in many places is, IMO, more a factor of reduced herd sizes, since pretty much all huntable species besides elk (and perhaps black bears) have been declining, or hunter pressure pushing species like elk off of public land and onto private land sanctuaries. Hunters probably play some role in reduced herd sizes but much of this could probably also be explained by habitat loss and predation from non-human predators.
Ultimately, I think if hunting was "harder", the long term effect would be increased hunting quality and opportunity. The trap with new technology is that it often results in initial success, even though in the long term it is not actually a net positive as the resource is reduced. But it's hard to convince many people to take a long term view of things.