Internet Hunting...

A

allenomics

New member
What's your take on Internet hunting, now banned in 35 states?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PANAMA CITY, Fla. -- Internet hunting will not be coming to Florida.

The Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission voted unanimously to outlaw the practice.

Internet hunting originated in Texas several years ago with a Web site that allowed hunters to shoot captive animals by lining up a shot on their computer monitor and controlling a gun with their mouse. The carcass then would be shipped to the customer.

Both hunters' groups and animal rights advocates have opposed the practice.

"It's just a violation of all the ethics of fair chase," Cabbage said.

No such businesses have yet come to Florida, and now they will not be able to, Cabbage said.

The Florida ban goes into effect July 1, stating that no person kill or assist in killing wildlife using a method that involves remote control aiming and discharging of a gun when that person is not physically present at the location of that gun.

Utah and Oklahoma have bans pending, and a bill for a federal ban has been filed in the U.S. Congress.

The Associated Press
 
One of the very rare occasions when PETA and hunters are in agreement! :D

Texas hunters pretty much erupted against that foolishness...
 
I think Internet hunting would be fun! Everywhere I go, people are talking about the internet, so there is no shortage of internets from what I can see. I am not sure how to hunt internets, but I think they should be fun to hunt. What to do with them after shooting one would be my question. I'm sure that with a little salt and pepper, maybe a dash of oregano, you could get it to taste like chicken! I'm all for hunting internets! Bring'em on!:p

Internet "hunting" is not hunting. It is a life and death scenario reduced down to a video game. It is using an electro-mechanical tool to kill an animal. If it were done under "fair chase", i.e. maybe putting a stand up in an unfenced hunting area with the rifle and camera, or something of the sort, it would still not be ethical. But putting a electro-mechanical rifle in place to shoot a corraled animal is too much like an execution. There is no chance for the animal to evade the hunter, let alone escape. I suppose we did this to ourselves by showing TV programs where hunters never miss, they always find game, and always celebrate the kill and sit down to dinner within 25 minutes. I have lost count over the years of how many 2AM drives I took, how many outings I came home with nothing, how many times I sweated and groaned dragging an animal in the snow or in the dark, etc, etc, etc. Maybe those spoiled rich guys who think that they can buy their way into a record book need to get out and see what it is all about.
I thought this got beat to death in another thread
Click to expand...
It did, but it was worth the rant just to let folks know I haven't changed my mind about it.
 
I love to play devil's advocate in a debate...;)
1) I would never pay to kill an animal over the 'net.
2) I would like to own the gizmo so I can sit here drinkin' coffee and pick off a deer during cold weather only to have to out and get my deer.
3) As far as fair chase you are MORE limited on this here innernet thingy as you are limited to range of motion of the gun and maximum range of the round.
4)electro-mechanical thingy? well them electronically discharged muzzle loaders should not be allowed?
Again I wouldn't do this but don't care either way what a land/game owner does with his property.
Brent
 
I know I am terrible for saying this, but I almost think it's funny. I know, I know, I am terrible, and that so goes against the ethics of hunting, but I still can't help it; the idea SO makes me chuckle :o

The reality might not, but the idea does. There, I said it.
 
GUNSHINE STATE!!!! I love it... Never heard it yet but will gleefully use it.
All we need now is open carry and "must issue" ccw...
Brent
 
Wow suprised to see this subject again.
I just want to point out that not every hunter agrees with PETA on this one. I think that any one who owns an animal or land should be able to do with that animal and land as he pleases. If the owner of a cow was to tie that cow to a fence and shoot then butcher it, most people would be ok with it. This is really no different other than someone else is paying the farmer to take the shot. This is by no means hunting and I would not want to participate but our lawmakers have gotten out of control in deciding what people can and cannot do with their own property. The U.S. is becoming "America, home of the brave, land of the somewhat free".
 
Well, dustoff, there was near unanimity among Texas hunters that this was unethical and stupid. I guess you can figure that maybe ten percent of any group is eat up with the weirds on "my rights!" BS. Most of that sort, generally assay a tad short on the flip side of the "rights" coin: Responsibility.

Art
 
there was near unanimity among Texas hunters that this was unethical and stupid.
Click to expand...
Ethics are subjective and I am sure not everyone in Texas feels the way you do Art. The lack of complaints does not mean everyone agrees it simply means that the law did not affect a large number of people. If none of these bussinesses existed in Texas and none wher being planned it is likely that the law didn't affect anyone.
"my rights!" BS
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you feel that standing up for your personal rights is BS.

My only question is in what way am I lacking responsibility because I see nothing wrong with killing an animal by its owner or for the profit of its owner?
 
The law DID IN FACT affect at least an American enterprise but I think it was a texas Operation intending to set up this rig. I remember pics of the setup back than and the terrain looked like Texas or may have been parts of OK, NM, AZ...
Brent
 
My view is that for every right, there is a responsibility. That's pretty much the way I live, anyhow. I may have a right to do something, maybe, but it may well be more responsible to not exercise that right. To me, this sort of "hunting" is reprehensible. Immoral. Probably fattening. Badnasty. Unethical. Low-rent.

SFAIK, the illegality is only against the commercial activity. I haven't read the law closely. I don't care if somebody sets up such a system for their own use--but if I find out, they're off my "Welcome!" list.

Yeah, it was apparently some Good Ol' Texas Boys who set up the deal. It stirred up a firestorm of opposition. IMO, glad it did. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a bunch of this "Me! Me! Me!" that's all too prevalent in this wondrous modern world.

Glad I'm old, sometimes.

Art
 
To me, this sort of "hunting" is reprehensible. Immoral. Probably fattening. Badnasty. Unethical. Low-rent.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that those people who are %100 anti hunting may say the same thing about the type of hunting you participate in. But somehow your view is better than theirs. Hypocracy never ceases to amaze me. You say this is unethical but as I said before ethics are subjective and your ethics are not always the same as everyone else.
just a bunch of this "Me! Me! Me!" that's all too prevalent in this wondrous modern world
Click to expand...
Seems to me you have that same attitude. You seem to feel it is ok to regulate what others can do with their property based on YOUR BELIEFS..If you don't like what someone is doing then don't participate. I know i would not participate in this "hunting". To take away someone right to determine how to use their property is just rediculous and shows the ME, ME, ME attitude you where describing.
 
I don't know why I'm supposed to care about an anti-hunter's opinion.

Hunters have evolved a code of ethics through a lengthy number of decades or even centuries. Internet hunting doesn't fit into that code.

Internet hunting is sorta like walking up behind a guy, shooting him in the back, and then bragging about the bravery it took.

Art
 
While I find this kind of hunting to be disgusting and repugnant. I also have destine for the modern bow that can make 50+yd shots and stainless inline muzzle loaders w/ high power scopes that can hunt the same woods with patched ball flintlocks. Dustoff does have a valid point. What line each individual is willing to draw is up to them. As long as the animal is taken humanly should be the main concern Unfortunately fighting for something like this will not show well for hunters and will not win us any friends. And like it or not we don’t live in vacuum and need to present ourselves as responsible and reasonable people. And to most this is something this activity doesn’t do.
 
I am all in favor of this Internet hunting thing under the condition that the mouse be constructed that randomly, in one of every ten shots, it blows up and kills the hunter. I am not going to argue rights or unwritten hunting ethics but this is one of the most disgusting things I know of. Ranks right up there with the paintball hunting of naked women that was supposedly carried out in Las Vegas.

One of my rules of hunting is if you kill it you eat it and since a lot of things I wouold hunt I wouldn't eat I have stopped a lot of my hunting with guns and switched to a camera. Of course there is the need to thin out the herd in some cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top