davlandrum
New member
T - I don't think the people that would "hunt" like that actually would be reading this forum.
When hunting isn't hunting.
- Thread starter skeeter1
- Start date
Death from Afar
New member
I have to say I think this whole concpet is just yet another ploy dreamed up by the antis to make normal hunters seem that bit odder. Who would seriously pay money for such a thing?!
Just because it does not meet your definition of hunting does not mean it is wrong. Maybe I think the "style" of hunting you do is not hunting because it doesn't meet my "definition". So then do you think it would be right of me to try to have your style (whatever that may be) banned? I also have to ask what is wrong with putting an animal in a cage and shooting it? If you own that animal you have (or should have) the right to do with that animal as you please. Farmeres kill animals all the time. Do you think they let the animal out to run free then stalk and shoot it.
You say its wrong because it isn't hunting. If they advertise their business as a trophy shoot would you then say it is ok?
davlandrum, I am glad somebody else finally stepped up and expressed the same opinion I have. Your example of the bear and cougar hunting is exactly what I fear. When you say one type of killing of an animal is bad then the logical steps take you to the thought that all killing of animals is bad.
I must also say that the hypothetical "what if someone shot at something they shouldn't" is a horrible argument. What if you shoot at something that you shouldn't is the logical question to follow. If the answer to this question\problem is to not allow hunting\shooting then all of us are at risk of losing our hunting privledges.
If you look back you can see that I have clearly stated that I would never participate in this type of hunting. I guess though that I am a horrible person because I see nothing wrong with other people trying to use their personal property to make a living.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Sorry it wasn't more clear; I say this sort of killing is wrong, not the outlawing.
The outlawing of computerized shooting happened because of the public outcry from hunters--and, yes, others--and not from faceless people in "goobermint". US hunting has been regulated for over a hundred years, now, ever since hunters realized that we either regulate or lose our hunting. The particular ideas came from us. Same for our self-imposed taxes, via Dingell/Johnson and Pitman/robinson--that go for wildlife augmentation in one form or another.
I dunno. Look. I've driven out into my back pasture in a sedan and sat in the car until a doe came out of the woods--and I shot her. Gutted her out, put the carcass in the trunk and drove back to the house. In no way did I consider that "hunting". I just went out to kill for some meat.
Other times, I went down to the deer-lease ranch and met up with other guys. Got the fire going. Cooked supper; had a few beers, BSing before time to sack out. Next day, made a hunting loop of some three or four miles. One of the guys shot a buck. Back to camp for all the "usuals".
Next day, or maybe that afternoon, repeat the walking hunts, two or three, maybe four guys. Sometimes solo in different 2,000-acre pastures.
All of that adds up to "hunting", in what I know as a traditional activity.
I dunno how to explain it any better. Hunting, to me, is a package, and is righteous. Sitting in a room in New York City or Hong Kong and pushing a button to make a gun go bang has nothing to do with what I know as hunting. Nothing to do with the ethics and morals of hunting as I understand them.
Again, "I dunno." To me, it's sorta like some rich guy who buys a race car, hires a crew of mechanics and pit people, hires a crew chief and driver, and then says, "Look what I did." What he did was make money and spend money. Yeah, he enabled that particular race car, but that was the end of his hunt.
Same for a computerized hunt: Sumdood pays money to push a button.
'Scuse me. That ain't huntin'.
Art
The outlawing of computerized shooting happened because of the public outcry from hunters--and, yes, others--and not from faceless people in "goobermint". US hunting has been regulated for over a hundred years, now, ever since hunters realized that we either regulate or lose our hunting. The particular ideas came from us. Same for our self-imposed taxes, via Dingell/Johnson and Pitman/robinson--that go for wildlife augmentation in one form or another.
I dunno. Look. I've driven out into my back pasture in a sedan and sat in the car until a doe came out of the woods--and I shot her. Gutted her out, put the carcass in the trunk and drove back to the house. In no way did I consider that "hunting". I just went out to kill for some meat.
Other times, I went down to the deer-lease ranch and met up with other guys. Got the fire going. Cooked supper; had a few beers, BSing before time to sack out. Next day, made a hunting loop of some three or four miles. One of the guys shot a buck. Back to camp for all the "usuals".
Next day, or maybe that afternoon, repeat the walking hunts, two or three, maybe four guys. Sometimes solo in different 2,000-acre pastures.
All of that adds up to "hunting", in what I know as a traditional activity.
I dunno how to explain it any better. Hunting, to me, is a package, and is righteous. Sitting in a room in New York City or Hong Kong and pushing a button to make a gun go bang has nothing to do with what I know as hunting. Nothing to do with the ethics and morals of hunting as I understand them.
Again, "I dunno." To me, it's sorta like some rich guy who buys a race car, hires a crew of mechanics and pit people, hires a crew chief and driver, and then says, "Look what I did." What he did was make money and spend money. Yeah, he enabled that particular race car, but that was the end of his hunt.
Same for a computerized hunt: Sumdood pays money to push a button.
'Scuse me. That ain't huntin'.
Art
FirstFreedom
Moderator
You're right - it ain't hunting.
But just a question - why should it be illegal any more than shooting a doe from your car in the back pasture should be illegal (also a "non-hunting" activity as you described it)? Just wondering.
But just a question - why should it be illegal any more than shooting a doe from your car in the back pasture should be illegal (also a "non-hunting" activity as you described it)? Just wondering.
Art, I will never try to argue that shooting an animal from your desk by way of a computer is hunting. You are 100% correct and I will always agree with you on that point.
My problem is that laws that ban people from using their privatre property as they see fit are BULL S@#T. I have no interest in ever paying to shoot an animal via the internet, I do however have an interest in protecting every right I have (whether I intend to use that freedom or not). It really upsets me to see my rights tacken away because somebody doesn't like what I may potentialy do with my property. These laws don't just trample on the rights of others. Whether you realize it or not your right has also been tacken away. What is gained by laws that take away your freedom to do things with your personal property while you are not hurting anyone else. I have to ask of all those in favor of these laws, what is gained by having laws like this? What have you gained for giving up your personal freedom to do something?
My problem is that laws that ban people from using their privatre property as they see fit are BULL S@#T. I have no interest in ever paying to shoot an animal via the internet, I do however have an interest in protecting every right I have (whether I intend to use that freedom or not). It really upsets me to see my rights tacken away because somebody doesn't like what I may potentialy do with my property. These laws don't just trample on the rights of others. Whether you realize it or not your right has also been tacken away. What is gained by laws that take away your freedom to do things with your personal property while you are not hurting anyone else. I have to ask of all those in favor of these laws, what is gained by having laws like this? What have you gained for giving up your personal freedom to do something?
Birdville2011
New member
here in the conservative state of Texas, its already illegal. I like to think that they thought it was too stupid of an idea that some pansy that was too much of a wimp to shoot a gun made, but that's probably not the case.
Dirty_Harry
New member
That was not my definition, I got it somewhere else. Also pursuing doesn't mean that you actually "run" after the animal, its that you get up off your a#$ and go out and HUNT. Baiting a bear IMO is hunting, and it isn't jsut my opinion...it IS hunting and that is just politicians. I apologize for my bad definition, but this is how I feel and it wont change.
davlandrum
New member
DH - I respect your opinion. What I was pointing out is that defining hunting is a very personal thing and "they" will twist things around to suit thier purpose.
There are people that would love to make it illegal for a landowner to raise pheasants, then turn them out to be hunted. There are people that would, and have, made it illegal to hunt bears over bait or with dogs.
I see enough problems with remote shooting that were already covered by game laws (licensing, hunter safety class, non-resident tags), or could have been simply added to the regs (have to physically be in possesion of weapon) to create a special law about it. If the regs can tell me what caliber is legal or what poundage bow I can use for which species, I would think remote control firing mechanisms would be pretty easy to add to the "can't use" list.
There are people that would love to make it illegal for a landowner to raise pheasants, then turn them out to be hunted. There are people that would, and have, made it illegal to hunt bears over bait or with dogs.
I see enough problems with remote shooting that were already covered by game laws (licensing, hunter safety class, non-resident tags), or could have been simply added to the regs (have to physically be in possesion of weapon) to create a special law about it. If the regs can tell me what caliber is legal or what poundage bow I can use for which species, I would think remote control firing mechanisms would be pretty easy to add to the "can't use" list.
gordo_gun_guy
New member
dustoff, I feel ja
It's not hunting; maybe "self-generated animal snuff films" would work. It's in poor taste, but it shouldn't be illegal.
Somewhen, attitudes in our country changed from "Man is the steward of all God's creatures" to "animals are just like people, only more innocent."
Animals are a natural resource (wild) or property (domestic). They are worthy of respect and our empathy, but I don't believe in any concept of "animal rights".
Abuse/neglect/abandonment of animals shows base immorality, a gross lack of empathy; at the very least, it shows poor stewardship of resources. The Humane Society and similar movements have maybe had a salutory effect on our society. Heck, if a man beats his dog, I'd reckon he's just as likely to beat his wife. I read that young Dahmer abused squirrels and chipmonks before becoming a serial killer. Still, we've gone a little overboard in ascribing to animals the rights of Man.
Be it Mr. Vick and his fighting dogs or Internet deer slaughter, I believe the sancity of property rights trumps imposing our animal treatment values on others.
A dog may be a beloved pet to me, a tasty dinner to a man in SE Asia, or a prize-fighter to a man in the SE United States.
A deer may be a cherished game animal to me, Bambi to some city kid, a nuisance to a gardner, or a "reactive target" to some sicko on the internet.
I believe we as individuals should spread the word of good hunting ethics, but I sure don't think it's the province of government to do so.
It's not hunting; maybe "self-generated animal snuff films" would work. It's in poor taste, but it shouldn't be illegal.
Somewhen, attitudes in our country changed from "Man is the steward of all God's creatures" to "animals are just like people, only more innocent."
Animals are a natural resource (wild) or property (domestic). They are worthy of respect and our empathy, but I don't believe in any concept of "animal rights".
Abuse/neglect/abandonment of animals shows base immorality, a gross lack of empathy; at the very least, it shows poor stewardship of resources. The Humane Society and similar movements have maybe had a salutory effect on our society. Heck, if a man beats his dog, I'd reckon he's just as likely to beat his wife. I read that young Dahmer abused squirrels and chipmonks before becoming a serial killer. Still, we've gone a little overboard in ascribing to animals the rights of Man.
Be it Mr. Vick and his fighting dogs or Internet deer slaughter, I believe the sancity of property rights trumps imposing our animal treatment values on others.
A dog may be a beloved pet to me, a tasty dinner to a man in SE Asia, or a prize-fighter to a man in the SE United States.
A deer may be a cherished game animal to me, Bambi to some city kid, a nuisance to a gardner, or a "reactive target" to some sicko on the internet.
I believe we as individuals should spread the word of good hunting ethics, but I sure don't think it's the province of government to do so.
While I understand and agree that this is not "hunting" in any way, shape or form that I recognize, I also agree with both dustoff and gordo_gun_guy. I too see the "possibility" of the slippery slope. When I was a kid, shooting over "bait" was no big deal, whether it was bear, deer, turkey, whatever. Now, it's an issue in more than a few states. We've already lost too much of our freedom when it comes to firearms and their use. We don't need more laws infringing on those rights. Just my opinion, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
dustoff, I could agree with you but IMO this slippery slope works both ways. Let's say that the law was re-phrased such that "Computer Hunts" were illegal as a COMMERCIAL action.
Ergo, you're unaffected on your own property. You could computer hunt if you wanted to.
Is that a right that you really want?
Be that as it may, the cold-blooded reality of the world we live in is that actions by bad people always create losses of liberty and rights. They always have; they always will. Right, wrong or indifferent, that's the way it is.
Private property rights--to drift the thread, I guess: You have two dogs. It's allegedly not your fault that they hate each other. "Somehow" they get together and fight. You're "afraid" to try to separate them, but you can safely videotape from outside the pen.
No money involved. No people paying to watch. No betting. No law broken, SFAIK, at least nothing provable in court.
Wanna guess about sales of videotapes, FOB Venezuela? Online betting, from newly produced tapes?
Just some points to ponder, in these discussions of Rights.
Art
Ergo, you're unaffected on your own property. You could computer hunt if you wanted to.
Is that a right that you really want?
Be that as it may, the cold-blooded reality of the world we live in is that actions by bad people always create losses of liberty and rights. They always have; they always will. Right, wrong or indifferent, that's the way it is.
Private property rights--to drift the thread, I guess: You have two dogs. It's allegedly not your fault that they hate each other. "Somehow" they get together and fight. You're "afraid" to try to separate them, but you can safely videotape from outside the pen.
No money involved. No people paying to watch. No betting. No law broken, SFAIK, at least nothing provable in court.
Wanna guess about sales of videotapes, FOB Venezuela? Online betting, from newly produced tapes?
Just some points to ponder, in these discussions of Rights.
Art
Art,
I have no use for such a right but I still want it available to me if I decided to do so. As far as making it illegal as a Commercial action, I would still have a problem with it. The point is the law keeps people from making a profit from their personal property. As far as your dog example is concerned, I must say I am also against laws that ban dog fights. I would never attend nor participate in a dog fight but I also feel I have no right to tell others what they can and cannot do with their property(the dog in this case). I know that some (including myself) find dogfights disturbing but I truly feel no man should ever be locked up for the "abuse of an animal". I can only point to what gordo said as right now I can't think of better way to put it.
Sorry for this off topic note but I can't help but share. When I was stationed in Korea I watched an American soldier eat an entire plate of dog. I believe it is called Gaegogi. I was curious as to its taste but couldn't bring myself to try it. At $60 a plate it was a little to expensive for my taste.
Anyway back on subject. I can agree that the slope does slide in both directions. The trick is a good balanceing act. It just so happens that in my opinion these laws tilt the balance in a way that is not in the best interest of hunters and for that fact U.S. citizens in general.
Art, I think we both feel the same way about these types of hunts\killings. I find them just a repugnant as everyone else does but I think that this whole thing is a moral issue and I feel that it is my responsibility to teach my kids moral values. Its not the governments responsibility to dictate what morals they abide by.
On the note of children, I just found out yesterday that my wife is expecting our 3rd child
. Our youngest is just now 6 months old so it looks like in the years to come I will teaching two kids to hunt at nearly the same time.Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Well, regardless of "rights", however one defines them, laws reflect cultural mores. "Societal opinion", if you will. And these mores and opinions change over time.
I guess you could say that society views a property right for computerized hunting in the same manner as it would some sort of agricultural stink factory.
And I gotta say that worrying about laws against computerized hunting as an infringement of rights is pretty much into straining at gnats and swallowing camels. I guess for me it's a holdover from way back when, in the Army, listening to the guardhouse lawyers yakking about their rights; mostly a perceived right to be irresponsible.
I guess you could say that society views a property right for computerized hunting in the same manner as it would some sort of agricultural stink factory.
And I gotta say that worrying about laws against computerized hunting as an infringement of rights is pretty much into straining at gnats and swallowing camels. I guess for me it's a holdover from way back when, in the Army, listening to the guardhouse lawyers yakking about their rights; mostly a perceived right to be irresponsible.
fisherman66
New member
I see your point Art, and I agree with it in it's essence. I just wonder how any law banning computerized hunting (or remote hunting) would be twisted to the detriment of hunters. The Rem Etronix rifle has a computer (microchip) in it. Could that be defined as computerized hunting? What does "remote hunting" mean?
I have spent a small amount of time volunteering as a legal secretary/research assistant for a cause I believe in (totally unrelated to this topic). Some wording used in law is very ambigious. I sometimes wonder if it was by design. Law is also selectively enforced. I have a hard time making more laws for those reasons.
Again, I agree with you ethical view. I just don't think the approach to dealing with the "moral malfeasance" should be law.
JMO as always
I have spent a small amount of time volunteering as a legal secretary/research assistant for a cause I believe in (totally unrelated to this topic). Some wording used in law is very ambigious. I sometimes wonder if it was by design. Law is also selectively enforced. I have a hard time making more laws for those reasons.
Again, I agree with you ethical view. I just don't think the approach to dealing with the "moral malfeasance" should be law.
JMO as always
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
What bothers me most about this sort of thing is the way it affects the views of the "citified ignorant" folks about hunting in general. Computerized hunts, caged or small-pen hunts, commercial poaching or bullet holes in road signs: None of that makes life easier for any of us.
We're forced to use the law to control unethical behavior, just in our own self-defense to be able to hunt in the future.
Art
We're forced to use the law to control unethical behavior, just in our own self-defense to be able to hunt in the future.
Art
Art,
You say, "We're forced to use the law to control unethical behavior, just in our own self-defense to be able to hunt in the future."
The law may be used to define unethical behavior. It may also be used to punish unethical behavior. But the law does not always control unethical behavior. I sometimes wish it did, depending (of course) on who was definining ethics!
In no way would I be interested in participating in a computerized hunt such as is being discussed, nor do I know anyone who would be. Still, I would not like to see a law passed which made such activity illegal. Just as I do not feel that shooting an animal via computer is "hunting", neither do I believe that shooting from a tree stand over bait or a feeder is "hunting". But I do NOT want any laws passed prohibiting any of these activities just because these particular methods of taking game do not fall within my personal definition of hunting.
I see very little difference (from a purely ethical standpoint) between driving out to the back pasture and sitting in a chair to harvest a deer for the freezer, and shooting a deer via the internet, IF the animal is taken for food. But I see a world of difference between the two activities in terms of what is actually experienced by the hunter. Clicking a mouse and watching an animal shot is an activity that is sterile and machine-like, at best, completely disassociated from our natural world at worst.
Do I like the idea of computerized hunting? I'll say again, absolutely not. Do I want laws passed prohibiting such activity? Absolutely not. And I do not agree that passing laws against computerized hunting should be done in our own self-defense so that WE will be able to hunt in the future. I do not believe for a minute that anything we, as hunters, do to appear "ethical" is going to change the minds of a single one of those who see ANY kind of hunting as evil and disgusting. As hunters, I believe we need to be on the offensive against the antis, not continually fighting a defensive battle in an attempt to preserve our freedoms and priviliges. I've found that a good cut of venison given as a gift goes a long way toward convincing a bambi lover that maybe hunters aren't such a bad lot after all. The way to an anti's shriveled little heart just might be through their stomach.
Just my .02, of course!
First post here for me, guys, but feel free to educate me if I need it. I have a thick skin. Have lurked here for quite a while and absolutely love the place.
Umber
"Whatever you wish for me, twice as much for you."
You say, "We're forced to use the law to control unethical behavior, just in our own self-defense to be able to hunt in the future."
The law may be used to define unethical behavior. It may also be used to punish unethical behavior. But the law does not always control unethical behavior. I sometimes wish it did, depending (of course) on who was definining ethics!
In no way would I be interested in participating in a computerized hunt such as is being discussed, nor do I know anyone who would be. Still, I would not like to see a law passed which made such activity illegal. Just as I do not feel that shooting an animal via computer is "hunting", neither do I believe that shooting from a tree stand over bait or a feeder is "hunting". But I do NOT want any laws passed prohibiting any of these activities just because these particular methods of taking game do not fall within my personal definition of hunting.
I see very little difference (from a purely ethical standpoint) between driving out to the back pasture and sitting in a chair to harvest a deer for the freezer, and shooting a deer via the internet, IF the animal is taken for food. But I see a world of difference between the two activities in terms of what is actually experienced by the hunter. Clicking a mouse and watching an animal shot is an activity that is sterile and machine-like, at best, completely disassociated from our natural world at worst.
Do I like the idea of computerized hunting? I'll say again, absolutely not. Do I want laws passed prohibiting such activity? Absolutely not. And I do not agree that passing laws against computerized hunting should be done in our own self-defense so that WE will be able to hunt in the future. I do not believe for a minute that anything we, as hunters, do to appear "ethical" is going to change the minds of a single one of those who see ANY kind of hunting as evil and disgusting. As hunters, I believe we need to be on the offensive against the antis, not continually fighting a defensive battle in an attempt to preserve our freedoms and priviliges. I've found that a good cut of venison given as a gift goes a long way toward convincing a bambi lover that maybe hunters aren't such a bad lot after all. The way to an anti's shriveled little heart just might be through their stomach.
Just my .02, of course!
First post here for me, guys, but feel free to educate me if I need it. I have a thick skin. Have lurked here for quite a while and absolutely love the place.
Umber
"Whatever you wish for me, twice as much for you."
Umber, welcome the TFL. I completely agree with you!
From the original post:
Art, I would think that most of the "citified ignorant folks" who do not hunt do not care about hunting. And I must point out that when a person in the city sees a hole in a road sign it is most likely not from the gun of a hunter.
From the original post:
I would like to point out that the NRA is not a hunting group but rather a right to own guns group. Their opinion in this matter is mentioned in this article and said to be a unity between the antis and hunters on the subject. This is completely wrong, since when was the NRA the defacto word in the world of hunting. As we can see obviously not all hunters are united with the antis on this one. Does anyone know (and can provide proof of) what hunting lobby groups such as SCI and others have to say about the activities Art mentioned (Computerized hunts, caged or small-pen hunts, commercial poaching ). Art can you please explain what you mean by commercial poaching. The word poaching seems to imply it is illegal and for a commercial business to get away with this seems unlikely. I am taking your "caged or small-pen hunts" to mean any "Canned hunt". If this is wrong please correct me.