When hunting isn't hunting.

S

skeeter1

New member
Let's hope this one quietly fades away. :(

Bill Prohibits Remote-Controlled Killing Of Animals

POSTED: 5:18 am EDT July 27, 2007


BOSTON -- Massachusetts would become the 34th state to ban hunting via an Internet connection under a bill passed by the House on Thursday.

By a margin of 151-0, representatives agreed to prohibit computer users from training a remote-controlled gun on an animal -- sometimes in another state - and then killing it with the click of a mouse.

The legislation had been sponsored by Sen. Robert Creedon, D-Brockton, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The National Rifle Association opposes the practice, and animal rights groups have complained it is unsportsmanlike.

"This is an issue that has unified both sides of the hunting debate," states Scott Giacoppo, deputy director of advocacy for the MSPCA-Angell. "Pending the governor's signature, Massachusetts can stand with much of the nation against this despicable activity."

The bill makes it against the law to create, maintain or engage in a computer-assisted Internet hunting program in Massachusetts, or to operate a shooting range for that purpose. The Senate previously passed the measure.

The bill was headed to Gov. Deval Patrick for his review pending a final procedural vote in the Senate.


Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
The concept of remote control 'hunting' is bizzare to say the least. Difficult to believe there are 'sportsmen' that are even interested in such an idea.
 
That type of hunting is hard for me to comprehend. I personally could understand in the case of a severely disabled hunter.....but other than that it's just a video game. Whether it be pen raised game or wild I see no advantage over a video game other than the thrill of just killing something......it's crap like this that gives us legitimate hunters a black eye.
 
This is another one of those topics that could quickly get out of hand.

This is an interesting issue in my eyes. I would personally never pay to kill an animal over the internet. It just doesn't seem like something I would enjoy. I am however completely against this law. I am not sure if PA has such a law but I hope that we do not.

Here is my take on the subject. I see animals as property. Wild animals belong to the state and as such you need to pay the state a fee for hunting, trapping, etc... People who own animals should be free to do with those animals as they see fit. If they want to sell the rights and means to kill their animals that is/should be their right. I can understand making a law that prohibits this type of killing when wild (state owned) animals are being killed, but to tell someone that they can not use their property for profit when they are not hurting anyone is just rediculous. I think that this is a slippery slope we are sliding down. What is the difference between this and any other canned hunt. As far as I am concerned this is not hunting, it is just like paying to shoot a cow, but I think that if you want to pay to shoot a cow and a farmer wants to sell you a cow to shoot on his property that is between you and the farmer and nobody else. Maybe my biggest problem with this law is the people backing it (the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). These people just see this as a way of stopping one type of "hunting". The fact that most people here (including myself) think they are above this type of "hunting"/killing makes no difference to them. They see it as a small victory. They have suceeded in banning one type of hunting so now they feel even more empowered to go after other forms of hunting. Unfortunately it seems that people are to willing to sit by and watch their rights and the rights of others be trampled by groups who put animals above people. Just because we don't like something someone is doing, does not mean we should take away that persons right to do it.

Before I am attacked for what I have said let me just point out that this is just my opinion. Like I said it is not something I would do and I think it is not hunting, but I feel people should have the right to do with their property as they see fit (so long as they aren't hurting anyone). Unfortunatly the land of the FREE is becoming less so every day.
 
That is absolutely sickening, I would slap the person thats calls himself a sportsman and does that.

That is not hunting, it is Bull****.
 
IIRC, this first came up a couple of years back. The Texas Lege passed legislation outlawing it, at the behest of beaucoup hunters, among others.

Art
 
I know the best thing to do would be to keep quiet and let this fade away but sometimes I don't do whats best. Dirty_Harry you say this is sickening, so I have to ask you why you feel that sitting in the woods pulling the trigger makes you better than the person sitting at a desk pulling the trigger? As I said before this type of hunting\killing is not for me and I will be teaching my chidren to know that this is not right. The fact that I think this is wrong is a moral opinion of mine. In this great land of the Free I would hope that nobody would push their morals on me and my family and so I will not do so to others. As long as they are not harming anybody, why are you so against it?
it's crap like this that gives us legitimate hunters a black eye.
Click to expand...
Can you please explain this? Why does it make us look bad? In the eyes of those who are against hunting (aka the murder of the poor inocent animals) your style of hunting is just as bad as the guy sitting behind a computer shooting a deer via the internet. The anti hunter's set of morals tells them that killing that "poor inocent animal" is wrong and they are trying to push their morals onto you by outlawing hunting. How do you feel about those views being pushed on you? Maybe your thought on that will give you some insight on how the "internet hunter" feels about being told they are doing something wrong.
Please no personal attacks I am simply looking for some insight from those who feel differently than I do.
 
Leave the noises of the anti-hunters out of it, okay? They're gonna be "agin it", no matter what the style.

We often talk of the importance of the campfire and the camaraderie with other hunters as being important to the hunting experience. Even a wheel-chair guy can be involved, there.

We grumble among ourselves about stand-hunting vs. stalking-hunting, but that argument is rather pointless. The different styles have to do with terrain and vegetation, as well as relative skills. The main deal is the outdoors part of the hunt--back to campfires and camaraderie.

Having some computerized motor drive manipulate a scoped rifle onto some animal and actuating the trigger from within a room somewhere has no relationship to what anybody considers "hunting" in the full context of the word.

And that's the why of the repugnance--whether hunter or anti-hunter. And why it's being outlawed by legislatures.

Then, cold-blooded practicality: How could you make a possibly-needed followup kill shot if the first shot merely wounded the animal? So, to me, it's both a moral issue and a practical issue--and I'm happy with the Texas Lege's action. :)

Art
 
Plus 1 for DIRTY HARRY ,that is no sportsman that is cockamamie bull s***!
and that is why they make hunting video games so people wont do stupid things like that.Also what stops the person from shooting another sportsman via world wide web or commiting murder? this sounds like something that never should have been allowed to happen:barf:
 
Didn't the collapse of the Roman Empire begin with the general erosion of the moral fiber of the citizens? This sounds like the same thing.
dean
 
Art, I will leave the anti's out of the debate since we can both agree they are against all hunting no matter how it is done. I also agree this is not hunting and has no resemblence to hunting as any of us would define it.
I am not sure why but this topic has really peaked my interest. I did a little research and found that this whole thing started in Texas in 2003. The proposed inventor was to have guides posted with every gun to finish off any animal that was merely wounded. That accounts for the practicality part of the argument. So that puts us back to a moral debate. I am pretty sure we all hold something of a view that this is not something we would want to participate in and we can all agree it is unsportsman like. My concern is that as we begin to regulate what others can do because of our own moral values, everybody's freedoms come under fire because we all hold different morals. What one does on their private property with their private property should not be regulated unless it is harmfull to others.
SpookBoy, you raise a scary point of view. Your thought is what stops someone from shooting another person with this setup. I ask you that with your point of thinking what stops you from shooting another hunter in the field? Dean, by what standards do we use top measure moral erosion and whose morals do we use as a guidline? I still think these laws are putting us on a slippery downward slope that ends with the loss of fundamental rights.
 
dustoff, anything that can be thought of has been or will be thought of, no matter how bad. And there is always that percentage who will actually act on an idea, no matter how bad it's seen to be. The newspapers regularly report examples of such behavior.

Limiting the argument to hunting, the package of morality we call "ethical hunting" has developed over a lengthy period of time within what could be termed the Hunting Brotherhood, if you will.

We have our internal arguments of the use of high-tech in muzzle-loaders and bows. We argue over such things as range-finders to reach out to distances previously considered to be ill-advised, if not possibly unethical from the standpoint of clean kill.

Homo Sap has always been a tool-using animal, however. These past arguments involve tools used in the field. The hunter is "out there", involved in all the rest of the hunting experience. For many of us, if not most, the outdoor experience, the camaraderie, is as important as the actual shooting.

We already regulate seasons, bag limits, shooting hours and methods of killing game--which speaks to our views about morals and ethics in hunting. These regulations originated with hunters themselves and not from a bureaucratic "they". From where I sit, outlawing "computerized shooting" by somebody seated at a desk in West Nowhere is in no way any slippery slope about morals in hunting. It's. Just. Flat. Wrong.

Art
 
From where I sit, outlawing "computerized shooting" by somebody seated at a desk in West Nowhere is in no way any slippery slope about morals in hunting. It's. Just. Flat. Wrong.
Click to expand...

outlawing computerized shooting is wrong or computerized hunting is wrong?

I would agree that both are wrong if that's what you meant. Seems a little incongruous, but much in life is as such.
 
For many of us, if not most, the outdoor experience, the camaraderie, is as important as the actual shooting.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. I would not hunt if not for the time I got to spend outdoors and the people I spent that time with.

I think my problem with seeing things your way is that the only responce I have gotten so far is that "it is wrong". Nobody has told me why it is wrong.
I will pose another question. If you where to be shopping for beef and decided that you wanted to order the meat from out of state. You go online and find a butcher that has a web cam and allows you to pick out the animal you want. The butcher then kills that animal and sends you the meat. Would you want this site shut down? What is the butcher gave you the option of him killing the animal as you watched via the web cam so you are sure you got the chosen animal? In my eyes the animals killed in any canned hunt is just like the cow. In my example you clicked on a cow to select what animal you wanted and that caused that animals death. This to me is the same as the internet hunts. My basic point is that these laws limit what people can do with their personal property even though they are causing no harm to anybody else. As far as I am concerned any law that does that is just "Flat Wrong".
 
SpookBoy, you raise a scary point of view. Your thought is what stops someone from shooting another person with this setup. I ask you that with your point of thinking what stops you from shooting another hunter in the field?
Click to expand...
Because of me being a paranoid person I am accused of being homicidal:eek:?
NO I'm more concearned about Identity theft and someone taking this technoligy & turning it into something it wasn't ment to be.
Besides I thought there was no flaming or putdowns on this site,I love TFL I cant stand it when someone takes it on themselves to put someone else down because of a comment,or a way of thinking,kind of reminds me of the way the gov't(not all of them) try to ban guns after a shooting:barf:.
 
Spookboy, I was not flaming you or puting you down, nor was I trying to suggest that you where homicidal. You asked a question about what stops someone from using this technology to kill someone. I simply used your thought process to pose a similar question to you. What stops any of us from commiting murder in the field? By your thought process all weapons would have to be banned as there is no way to ensure they are not used in a crime. If you feel it was a putdown then I can only say I am sorry that you did not understand the meaning of my post.
Also what stops the person from shooting another sportsman via world wide web or commiting murder?
Click to expand...
If you have an issue with my post maybe you should look back at your own comments. If my post is accusing you of being homicidal then you have Also accused everyone who would possibly use this technology of being homicidal. :rolleyes:
 
I'll tell you why it is wrong dustoff....it isn't hunting. That is like putting the animal in a cage and then shooting it.

From wikipedia.com
Hunting is the practice of pursuing animals for food, recreation, trade or for their products.
Click to expand...

Keyword is pursuing, I know that this is not the best definition out there, but it is all I could work with now. You are not pursuing the animal by sitting at your computer and waiting for poor old bambi to come along and blast him. Also I doubt that they would waste the man power to watch everyone of those rifle stands. Plus, like Spookboy said what would stop a person from shooting something he wasn't supposed to.....example lil Johnny has a few to many buds and OMG theres a big bird! Lets shoot it! But what lil Johnny doesn't know at the time, is that he just shot our nations bird...the Bald Eagle. So, IMO if you can't see anything wrong with this, oh bad.:eek:
 
Keyword is pursuing, I know that this is not the best definition out there, but it is all I could work with now. You are not pursuing the animal by sitting at your computer and waiting for poor old bambi to come along and blast him.
Click to expand...

Dirty Harry - your line of reasoning is exactly what got bear hunting over bait outlawed in Oregon. Just substitute "in your stand" for "at your computer" and "smokey the bear" for "bambi". From that it was not a big stretch to outlaw running cougars with dogs.

I don't agree with this practice, but I also firmly believe that it is not the place of the government to make the world "perfect", and especially to further infringe the rights of land owners to make a living from thier land. There are people that are willing to pay a lot of money to go to a ranch, pick out thier elk/deer/exotic, shoot it and pretend they are hunting. I don't think this is such a dramatic stretch from that type of canned hunt.
 
i dont see why someone would hunt that way unless they were confined to a bed.

You could just play a video game if you like a mouse as a weapon.

what happend to practacing your shot, going to the stand in the cold morning, trying to focus on the triggerbreak will you take your game.

clicking a mouse takes all the emotion out of hunting if you ask me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top