Nobody's Hunting Over The Internet, But Dammit, We Gotta Make It Illegal
from the proactive-legislation-the-best-kind dept
The uproar over online hunting has far outpaced its actual practice. It would appear that there’s only been one such site in the US, which wasn’t even up for very long in 2004, but the push to put laws in place that ban internet hunting has remained strong. The WSJ has caught on, noting that lobbyists led by the Humane Society are still convincing legislators that legally enshrined bans are needed. Thirty-three states now have bans on the practice (up from 25 back in February), and Congress is considering a national ban — despite the fact that nobody’s doing it. One state rep in Delaware asserts that online hunting “would have the potential to make terrorism easier,” though it would appear the reporter didn’t ask her to explain exactly why, and that she doesn’t “want to give ideas to people.” So, instead, she’s sponsored a bill drawing attention to an activity that nobody’s really bothering with anyway. Makes perfect sense. Furthermore, one of the Congressional sponsors of the nationwide ban said he’d never heard of internet hunting until the Humane Society brought it to his attention. He says he wondered “who would do something like this?” As it turns out, nobody, really.
Filed Under: congress, internet hunting, politics
Companies: humane society
Comments on “Nobody's Hunting Over The Internet, But Dammit, We Gotta Make It Illegal”
This is just going to make the “problem” worse.
Oops...
I better go read that bill carefully… I just “shot” and “killed” another player I was “hunting” in Unreal Tournament over the internet… I might already be a felon!
Does that mean I can’t use Halo or Battlefield 2 on XBox Live?
Re: ME2
NICE!!!
The facade of usefullness
Typical politician tactics.
If you really cant figure out anything usefull to do pretend your doing something and claim your helping even if there is no problem.
One thought.....
What a bunch of imbeciles…
Can't Tell
I cant tell whose worse, the morons going around wasting all our taxdollars trying to pass bullshit legislation like this, or the people who don’t do anything at all voting yes on everything that falls in line with their respective parties agenda. If every single congressman and woman like this were to die tomorrow, we’d probably achieve the single greatest leap forward in progressing as a country since the inception of the constitution nearly 300 years ago.
It makes me want to spend the 20 minutes to design the site to do this. Put some pigeons in a cage and that’s it. I wonder if I could just use the code from the artist who’s under the paint ball gun in his apartment.
I couldn’t afford the bandwidth though. Not at all.
banning internet hunting? doesn’t that interfere with our virtual second amendment rights to arm ourselves to the teeth, get all liquored up and shoot at anything that moves, providing we have the proper permits and it’s in season?
but what really has me worried here is the apparent connection between virtual cruelty to animals and terrorism. i mean, what about all the bass fishing and duck hunting video games, and those booths at the fair where you shoot at a moving row of bunnies with targets painted on them? and whack-a-mole! what about whack-a-mole?
It is for the children.
Re: Re:
Yeah, hunting children is the best!
WTF is internet hunting. I’m sorry I have never heard anything about internet hunting before, and I consider myself up-to-date on the internet.
Re: Re:
I agree, WTF is internet hunting?
Just because people arent doing it dosent mean we shouldn’t make legislation against it. I see what your saying Carlo, but yet again, another poorly written article.
Re: Re:
Agreed, you are not allowed a lot of things that no-one does. Not allowed to eat your neighbor either. It’s in the law. Scrap that law and turkey day would never be the same.
Poor article, the author is misinformed and misses the mark by a mile, no pun intended…
Re: Re: Re:
Jacco worte:
So you say, but then you don’t point out just exactly what is inaccurate in the article. Without that it appears that you’re just trolling.
Re: Re:
Did you know that there are still real and in practice laws requiring men to walk in front of a car warning people to back off if their wife is driving? Yah, useless and outdated laws are all too common.
With this internet hunting thing, if it isn’t profitable i.e. no one will do it, it won’t happen and a law isn’t required.
Now, things like radio not having to pay royalties, sattelite radio having to pay a percentage of their profits to royalties, and internet radio having to pay a set ammount per song and per station (And enacting this retroactively back a year so all internet radio companies have to pay millions for songs they played last year) ? Yeh, legislation should be made for crap like that.
What about immigration reform? Remember that was a big deal a month ago? NOTHING happened, it just became less of a big deal. I live in Arizona and the other day I was at a wendys and the manager had to keep using his green card on the registers because none of his employees were legal.
Yah, we REALLY need useless legislation.
Agreed, Nick. I think it’s better to put out preventative legislation than wait until something becomes a problem, it’s harder to ban something if it becomes popular.
Ok, it probably won’t, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with banning something that would be a problem, just in case.
Re: Re:
you are a moron. The problem they should ban is your first amendment rights, because you already are a problem.
Re: Re: Re:
Tank — you are the moron. What is being banned is the use of remote control, real weapons. Not games. Not toys. Real guns, real bullets, real dead people when it goes wrong. Wouldn’t this make a dandy site to hack? Think anybody out there that doesn’t particulary like Americans would love to off a couple of us, and no chance of getting caught?
This is such a bad idea that it would be bound to catch on.
Note this too — as far as I am concerned, PETA means People Eating Tasty Animals. But if you are going to hunt, get you ass off the couch and out into the woods.
Re: Banning
You’re right there was a thing a while back where they sterilized mentally retarded weomen that was a good preventative measure… Love to hear you lib jackasses like only your own point of view
Someone should make your politicians read your item and every comment below.
No – forget that – they are politicians.
Why not?
I don’t get it? What’s wrong with banning Internet Hunting? Even if just one person is doing it…
Do we need to have a thousands of animals dying everyday before it makes sense to ban it?
Re: Why not?
Khaled, just how DO you kill an animal over the internet?
Let me explain..
Internet hunting that is being legislated against is not virtual hunting in the context of a video/on-line game. It is using a webcam to remotely locate and aim and fire a real weapon at a real prey animal. As I recall the site that offered it was associated with a hunting preserve where the animals are free to roam within the confines of a fenced in area (presumably of some acres). Not sure how the gun is moved around but maybe its in a tree stand or maybe they envisioned a mobile robot. In any event, EVERY hunter and sportsman I know is opposed to this. Most stay away from the preserves as well, its just not as challenging/sporting as hunting in open territory. For most people (in the US at least) recreational hunting is about overcoming challenges by having intimate knowledge of the land and the animals that live on it..and perhaps discovering ones place in the natural ecosystem by killing your own food.. Remote hunting via the internet doesn’t provide that.
Re: Let me explain..
I AM a real hunter (bow hunter only). And I know LOTS of hunters. And every one of the hunters I know think Internet hunting is disgusting. As do I.
I also think boiled spinach is dugusting, but I don’t see any reason to pass laws about it, though.
Re: Let me explain..
Yeah, like sitting on your fat ass up in a “hunting” blind, watching “the game” and getting drunk while waiting for some unsuspecting animal to wander in front of your gun sights so you can blast it. That’s the way EVERY hunter I know does it.
The old “I eat what I kill” defense. Isn’t that what Jeffrey Dahmer did?
Re: Let me explain..
Ok, thank you “I know real hunters”, now I understand! The article should have explained what internet hunting was. Maybe they should pay you to write for them!
From the article
“California also banned Internet fishing.”
I would love to see how that would work.
Help!
Someone call Ted Nugent!
The Battlefront is getting close 2 home
STOP THEM! I demand that the FEDS get involved before remote controlled salt shakers pour misery unto poor innocent slugs by demented haxorz. but really, can you imagine haxing the site, and reaiming the rifles @ the preserve’s admin. take that as a DOS attack. DENIAL OF STUPIDITY.
What the hell?
o_O
1) This isn’t real hunting. (I don’t think there’s any disagreement about this.)
2) The government has better things to do. Much better.
3) The only reason this is getting any ink, er… bits, is because of the Vick/dog fighting bullshit.
No politico wants to appear “soft” on anything that could be construed as “hurting” animals. Toss in anti-gun hysteria and drop the “T” word, and… bam! We’re here.
Stop wasting time
If there really was a market for internet hunting then a national ban wouldn’t do much good anyway, all the hunting sites would be hosted from another country. But since 99.9% of the people out there think it’s one of the dumbest things they ever herd of, there is no market for it. I wish congress would stop wasting there time trying to fix problems we don’t have and start focusing on the real issues.
Re: Stop wasting time
That could be enforced the same way offshore gambling bans will be — by shutting off the funds through denial of credit card payments from the U.S. Although I’d support state-sponsored assassination of both anyone in a foreign country offering such services to Americans and any American using them, ideally by means of being “hunted” in the same manner by some eccentric billionaire.
Thanks to “I know real hunters” for explaining what Internet Hunting is.
Make terrorism easier!
I just figured out how it will make terrorism easier. If Al Qaeda(sp) employed this technology to hunt Western Devils! Imagine walking down the street and seeing a gun slowly tracking you. *deer in the headlights look and BOLT!
On the plus side it may get us western devils to think about our weight more. Kinda hard to be super maneuverable with some extra poundage. lol
I prefer the less lethal tag and release option.
Lawmakers are having kneejerk reactions. Afterall it will be election time soon and they don’t want to be on the bad side of anything seen as improper.
Got Milk?
I believe Chris hit the nail on the head, we need a whole new government. One that believes in the constitution, the declaration of independence, an that little boston tea party were our countries fathers where smoking the hemp pipe, a free nation. I’m not really sure what “online hunting” is, but if it is what I think (a video game where you hunt animals) then these activists need to get a life. Along with the snake lobbyists that presents there monetary gain offer to the foolish/crooked senator whom is supposed to be looking out for YOU an not his own pocket.
Didn’t someone say ONE NATION (not world) UNDER GOD (one god) FOR LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL (um you an me, your likes, my likes, whether they differ or not)!!!
What it is..
This is not about online hunting video games. It’s people strapping a web-cam and an internet controlled aiming system to a real weapon so some asshole 2000 miles away can kill real animals who are confined to a relatively small area.
Here is another article about it…
http://www.engadget.com/2004/11/17/internet-hunting-coming-to-texas/
Killing for food is one thing but this is just sic..
Re: What it is..
There should be a law requiring every hunter to eat every last bit of every thing they kill right on the spot.
You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
I’m not understanding the point of this article.
Internet hunting was a bona-fide business in 2005/2005. The inventor actually used the system to bring down animals in the testing phase of the business plan. So to say it “never happened” is just plain wrong. It did happen.
The first publicly accessible hunt was supposed to have happened on April 9 2005. The reason why it didn’t happen is because the Texas state legislature made it illegal. That effectively shut down the company that was to offer it.
The business model was popular in some circles. There is no doubt whatsoever that similar business ventures would pop up in states with a large hunting demographic.
So, I’m sorry to say, all you people who make fun of this legislature (and Carlo, who wrote this really lame article) are incredibly ignorant. It figures. Why am I not surprised? Mod down to all of you morons.
Carlo is particularly ignorant, or perhaps disingenuous, because he failed to fully describe what Internet hunting.
Internet hunting was to have been a subclass of “canned hunting”. Many of these so-called “Internet hunting” laws are actually “canned hunting” laws. Idiot.
Canned hunting is when you fence off a field, maybe half the size of a football field, and stock the field full of animals. Sometimes these fields are stocked with “exotic” animals (e.g. tigers), but most often these fields are stocked with semi-domesticated animals: animals that are so accustomed to humans that they’ll walk up to you and feed from your hand. They’re so used to the sight of humans that if they do run from a person, they don’t really run that fast. And because they’re fenced in, even if they did try to run, they’d have nowhere to run to.
People walk into these fields and pick off animals. Sometimes they’ll coax the animal with food to call it over and then shoot it at point blank.
Again, Carlo is being either stupid or disingenuous: most hunters are against canned hunting, not because it’s a concession that they think is worthless because no one does it, but because even many hunters have notions of “fair chase” and sportsmanship: the idea that the animals should have SOME kind of fighting chance to flee and survive.
Shooting a semi-tame animal penned up in an open field with nowhere to run and hide is not called hunting. It’s called slaughter. Hunting implies some kind of challenge. There should be a chance for the animal to survive. Canned hunting is bloody slaughter. Nothing more.
Most of these so-called Internet hunting laws are actually laws prohibiting canned hunting.
I’m curious — how could such a sub-standard article make its way on techdirt? This kind of “journalism” is no journalism. All you idiots should do a web search, read the news articles, and verify the story for yourself before you jump on the “me-too bandwagon”. This article is incorrect trash, and so are most of the people commenting on it.
Look up “canned hunting” on wikipedia, idiots.
Re: You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
“So to say it “never happened” is just plain wrong. It did happen.”
He didn’t say it never happened. He said, “It would appear that there’s only been one such site in the US, which wasn’t even up for very long in 2004, but the push to put laws in place that ban internet hunting has remained strong.”
So, as the rest of us “morons” can see, one site from two years ago is hardly reason for congress to waste efforts on a trivial law, such as this one. In case you haven’t noticed, there are way more important societal issues that our government should be concerning themselves with.
Re: You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
“So to say it “never happened” is just plain wrong. It did happen.”
He didn’t say it never happened. He said, “It would appear that there’s only been one such site in the US, which wasn’t even up for very long in 2004, but the push to put laws in place that ban internet hunting has remained strong.”
So, as the rest of us “morons” can see, one site from two years ago is hardly reason for congress to waste efforts on a trivial law, such as this one. In case you haven’t noticed, there are way more important societal issues that our government should be concerning themselves with.
Re: You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
> Internet hunting was to have been a subclass of
> “canned hunting”. Many of these so-called “Internet
> hunting” laws are actually “canned hunting” laws
So using your own logic, you’d have no problem with internet hunting so long as it wasn’t canned. Just as a real (non-penned) hunt is okay, then internet hunting should be okay as well, so long as there are no pens involved, right?
What I’m not getting is why the addition of a computer/the internet to this equation matters so much. Canned hunting is canned hunting. It should be illegal no matter how it’s done, whether done in person or done over a computer. Real hunting is real hunting and should NOT be illegal, whether done in person or done over a computer. If you want to stick a web cam up in a tree and wait hours for a (non-penned) animal to wander by, how is that any different from a hunter sitting up in that same tree and waiting for the same thing?
To me, the computer is irrelevant. It’s perfectly legal to hunt but now if someone does the same thing over a computer, it suddenly rises to a national crisis such that we need nationwide legislation? Bizarre.
Re: You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
And most readers are against posters who use pejoratives like “moron” and “idiot”. Perhaps what we really need are some laws against people like you.
The article didn’t say that and to imply that it did is just plain dishonest.
Re: You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
Hi Peter,
I find it amusing that you repeatedly blast Carlo for what he wrote but fail to realize that it’s actually an article in the WSJ that has all the facts that Carlo wrote about. If you want to complain about the facts, complain about the WSJ’s reporting, not Techdirt’s. You hold us up as if we are journalists — but we are not and never have claimed to be. We give our opinions and analysis on the news and trends. And Carlo’s analysis is dead on based on the report from the WSJ and backed by earlier reports on this topic that we have written about.
Also, I have to say, that you throw around insults and slurs rather easily — which doesn’t make us take you seriously. People who don’t have a real point tend to throw around insults rather than facts. And the mistakes in your response suggest that you responded here emotionally rather than actually understanding what you were criticizing (which is amusing, since you accuse us of the same thing).
I’m not understanding the point of this article.
Clearly — because you seem to think it (and this site) is something that it is not.
Internet hunting was a bona-fide business in 2005/2005. The inventor actually used the system to bring down animals in the testing phase of the business plan. So to say it “never happened” is just plain wrong. It did happen.
How come no one else seems to know about it then? We’ve been writing about this topic for years, and we’ve never seen any indication that it was “a bona fide business.” Neither has the reporters at the WSJ. Secondly, Carlo never said “it never happened.” He said there was one site that was up briefly.
Funny that you keep calling Carlo and idiot for stuff said by the WSJ but can’t seem to read carefully enough through a single paragraph on our site to understand it properly.
We get crazy comments around here all the time, but if you’re going to make insulting and totally off-base comments about one of our writers, you better have your facts straight.
The business model was popular in some circles. There is no doubt whatsoever that similar business ventures would pop up in states with a large hunting demographic.
There is no indication the business was ever popular. The fact that others have no popped up seem to suggest that your claim that they would is wrong. So, nice try.
Carlo is particularly ignorant, or perhaps disingenuous, because he failed to fully describe what Internet hunting.
On Techdirt, rather than write out long articles, we write short posts, with links to the back story. You clearly did not click on any of the links to get the fuller story, but our past posts on internet hunting (which Carlo linked to) clearly explain it.
Internet hunting was to have been a subclass of “canned hunting”. Many of these so-called “Internet hunting” laws are actually “canned hunting” laws. Idiot.
Actually, if you read the article, many of the laws were not a subclass of canned hunting — but entirely separate. At least one bill included both, side by side.
Then you go on and on about canned hunting, which isn’t what we were discussing…
I’m curious — how could such a sub-standard article make its way on techdirt?
Because it was an interesting story about dumb legislation relating to the internet. That’s the type of stuff we write about.
This kind of “journalism” is no journalism.
Again, we have never claimed to be journalists. We write analysis and opinion on news and trends.
So, once again, I’d ask that you admit your mistakes and retract the entirely uncalled for insults against Carlo, who did a fine job with this post.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.
– Ernest Benn
Hey Overcast
I can be a stupid google feeder too!!
If we don’t change direction soon, we’ll end up where we’re going.
– Professor Irwin Corey
Nothing new here. Instead of working on stuff that actually matters for the progress of this country, our ‘officials’ are wasting time/money on pointless matters, that are going to make no difference in society.
It’s funny though, because in reality, the online hunting would in no way make it easier for ‘terrorists’ to do anything damaging. Yet, congress wasting tax-payer time/money/resources on negligible laws like this poses more of a threat to national security than ‘terrorists’.
Wasted
“Terrorism” is just a word that they put over this to make it an untouchable case. I mean, who can fight someone who is stopping terrorism, right? The hunting website in no way promotes or helps terrorists. The only thing that could possibly promote terrorism is the technology behind it, but banning these webhunts won’t make the technology disappear.
The Congress is out for approval ratings. Tackling long-standing societal problems is not going to get you approval as fast as a long list of accomplishments will, no matter how meaningless. The average American (who probably could care less about politics) would be more impressed seeing a long list of accomplishments rather then the beginnings of something important.
And because of the term lengths, these politicians are in it for the short-run approval.
I still don’t believe it ever happened. I have yet to find any possible way to push a 180gr Nosler SB down my internet connection fast enough to knock over a water glass, much less a game animal. Anything else is a weird form of voyeurism, with some idiot on the other end doing the shooting. Notice I never said hunting. Hunting involves fair chase.
Re: Re:
That’s because the tubes are clogged with porn and illegal mp3s. If we stop illegal filesharing, it will allow hackers to snipe at anyone in the world and nobody would be safe. The terrorists would win.
So everyone crank up your bittorrent client and start downloading movies. The fate of the free world depends on you!
Humane Society Funds
This falls into the ‘feel good law’ category – you know, politicos brag about doing good when in fact nothing bad was prevented (in this case, because there was nothing to happen). Politicians are stupid and will continue to be so – but think of people who donate money to the Humane Society to help out the local animal shelters – only to find those idiots spend the money to wine and dine politicians to get them to even CONSIDER laws that are stupid. Next time Humane Society calls for money, my answer is ‘no, sorry – you waste money, you don’t get mine any more’ – and I mention this fiasco.
If you don't like Amuurrica you can gitt out
What’s this notion about flying spaghetti monsters, now? Do what now?
Say What
That’s it, say what?
To the person who reported this, thank you. This is a true gem.
So many posts, so much bad information. No wonder our politicians do stupid things, the people who vote for them don’t have a clue.
There was a guy that started an internet hunting company, and in fact, it worked. He never had any customers (because of the outcry and publicity) but in fact a friend used his system and shot and killed a wild boar in Texas. This wasn’t something that was pie in the sky, it was real. It could have gone forward.
Of course Techdirt doesn’t explain that, but what can you expect. Its all about the eyeballs and click throughs. What, you couldn’t come up with a DRM article or something?
Re: Re:
Of course Techdirt doesn’t explain that, but what can you expect. Its all about the eyeballs and click throughs.
RandomThoughts, you’ve read Techdirt for a while. You understand the concept of links. You know that when we write stuff, we link back to earlier posts rather than rewrite the same content over again. And, if you had clicked on those links you’d see the story you claimed we didn’t want to write about.
And, no, it’s not about eyeballs and clickthroughs for us. If that were the case, we’d be writing very different stories. Our business doesn’t depend on visitors or ads. We write what we find interesting and that’s that.
Besides, every time someone accuses of being misleading for the sake of eyeballs I have to laugh. If that were the case, it would ruin our reputation, ruin our business and shut us down. Why would we ever want to do that? Our business is based on our ability to accurately provide insight. Why risk our reputation that way?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060207091901/http://www.live-shot.com/
I have never even heard of this, this is stupid
What's the big deal?
I don’t really see the problem with Internet hunting. I have lived most of my life in Texas and Louisiana where hunting is a big deal. I now live in a part of Texas where hunting on preserves is big business. I don’t have any problem with hunting. If you don’t either then you should’nt oppose Internet hunting.
People claim that hunting is about hardship and overcomming nature. Maybe so but by what means. Using gunpower a TECHNOLOGY that took humans quite some time to perfect against animals is fundamentally no different. What about bow hunting? Same deal, nothing in nature has a natural defense against arrows. Bows, arrows, scents, calls, all of the tools that hunters use are pure technology. If you look through any hunting magazine you will see adds for GPS, 2 way radios, ATV’s and the like. From a deer’s perspective what’s the difference if you shoot him from 200 yards using a 7mm ultra mag or from Asia with the same weapon mounted on a web cam?
I’m not saying that there are practical and saftey concerns that could be raised. But those who complain on grounds of principle and yet support any kind of hunting are misleading themselves.
If we’re going to use our man-made tools to kill animals why not use them all?
I must be a ditz!
I don’t understand… what are you trying to hunt anyway? Like fake deer or something? I should think that would be better than using live ammo and going out and doing the real thing. Why would the PETA people care about something like virtual internet hunting? I should think it would make an outlet of sorts. Although I know it’s not the same feeling blowing up bits in a box over shooting an animal in the head for real. Takes some of the thrill out of the murder.
Armchair Hunting
This villainous legislation must be opposed vigorously. Modern man is too fat to traipse through wooded forests in search of game. Today’s hunter cannot be expected to suffer such exertion. It is much more convenient to sit at home, log on while sprawled on one’s couch, point the mouse and click.
i think rune scape player will have problems since there is a skill called hunting and well you hunt.
Then ..god dammit, how about making sex illegal? … Atleast thats identifiable.
It’s gonna be a toughie tho, since its been out for quite awhile 🙂
But if you are gonna strike preemptively.. it’s now or never.
Re: Re:
Only sex over the Internet — not cybersex, but the real thing (only with someone else’s penis).
re-think your thinking
http://mysite.verizon.net/mdhunteralert/Internet%20Hunting.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/mdhunteralert/Internet%20Hunting%20II.htm
“Who wiould do such a thing?”
I don’t know, handicapped people who might enjoy something other than wheelchair basketball and don’t suffer from a hysterical oh-no-it’s-Bambi syndrome?
Also, posting links to shocking and digusting anti-hunting site pics doesn’t change the fact that hunting is legal.
Peter Peter Grab your ankles
Peter, how about volunteering to go help the homeless or work towards getting kids living under the poverty level some health care instead of taking this hysterical, cultist belief that somehow animals have the same rights we do and making it your life’s mission? Long after you are dead, no one will give a shit that you posted some clueless rant on an internet site about people using a PC to shoot a few deer.
try using rational thought instead of reacting emotionally to everything you read.
Internet Hunting
It appears the real fear has nothing to do with hunting or the handicapped or fairness. The real fear is that someone can pull the trigger on a “real” rifle with a computer mouse.
As for canned hunts, these people are scum.
Re: Internet Hunting
I was accused of hunting without a license one night by a Kansas State Trooper. My weapon? A Lincoln Towncar. He thought is was funny. I did not since my car was totaled.
What the humane society should do is embrace the concept. They have far too many animals that fail to get adopted. Imagine how their otherwise doomed animals would fare if, instead of quietly euthanizing animals, they instead placed them in front of a live webcam and allowed users to either bid for the right to shoot the animal, or bid for the continued housing and upkeep of the animal, or pay to adopt the animal themselves. The money would pour in, fewer animals would be killed, and the great unwashed would be further entertained. Everybody wins.
Re: Re:
Dear YRH. Good idea. Kind of like put your money where your mouth is. Do you think they will really understand?
Internet hunting
Who eats the animal? I’m a hunter, and I eat what I kill. Anything else is in a different category.
Re: Internet hunting
Exactly.
Signed,
Hannibal Lecter
OnLine Homerun King
Was thinking of setting up internet actuated swinging baseball bat that can get me some home runs from the comfort of my own couch and for sure beat Barry Bonds newest record, never liked killing animals anyway. How much steroids do I need to push the mouse button when I get old.
Props to Peter for pointing out that canned is real (a remote controlled gun aimed and fired via the internet) and so is canned hunting (shooting animals pen. None of this has any element of hunting (tracking and fair chase), only slaughter. The laws Carlo so blithely makes fun of generally ban penned “hunting.”
As to the “you shouldn’t pass a law until after it happens” crowed, that is just silly. First off **it did happen** second, nipping it in the bud is better than waiting until the problem is bad and finally if you don’t think internet hunting exists then the ban won’t hurt you or anyone else.
What? You think government and enforcement are free? I’ve got news for you, they aren’t. Some people always want more and bigger government in whatever way they can get it.
it does make some sense for premptive banning. hunting brings in a lot of revenue and tourism dollars.
Oooo, I have an idea for an internet site! Beating a Dead Horse Online. Yea, you get to control this robot see, and you can choose different things, like a baseball bat, hammer, stick, etc. And you use it to beat this real live dead horse.
“‘So to say it “never happened” is just plain wrong.’
The article didn’t say that and to imply that it did is just plain dishonest.”
Hmm, AC 12:28, I don’t suppose you read the **headline**?
“Nobody’s Hunting Over The Internet, But Dammit, We Gotta Make It Illegal”
I think that “nobody” is plain enough.
I suppose somebody could try and make some convoluted attempt to argue that the the present tense only means now, but that is just the use of standard journalistic grammar which favors the present tense–as when news casters say, “The FDA is reporting that…” When, in fact, the FDA made a press statement that morning.
Re: Re:
There you go again, trying to put words in the author’s mouth. You do know that “Nobody’s” is a contraction for “Nobody is”, don’t you? I can’t believe that you’re too stupid to know that. The word “is” indicates a present state of being, meaning that it is not currently happening. That’s a far cry from “never”.
That what it means to most people. The only convolutions involved are in your lame attempts to put words into the author’s mouth and then weasel out of your lie as if you thought no one would call you on it. Well, think again.
what legislators should concentrate on
let’s ban internet article commenting! it’s for the children!
Shooting caged animals remotely
Instead of innocent animals, especially exotic ones of ones on the endangered species list, why not have remote controlled rifles installed all over the country and then people committing obvious crimes perpetrated in public view of the camera could be stopped.
Think of it! Gang members trying to pull off drive-by shootings, rapes or other egregeous crimes, bank robbers, kidnappers, – numerous and sundry highly outrageous crimes against society stopped.
I won't be making friends today.
This is all just silly. There is a difference between something that is *wrong* and something that is *disliked*.
Putting a bunch of semi-domesticated animals in a semi-small pen and killing them without much sport is not *wrong* and needs no laws outlawing it. I don’t think the cattle we use for food are even given the chance to run away, and that’s not illegal. What’s the difference? (Tigers, if there are any such places with pens of tigers, are undoubtedly covered under a different law)
But that is off-topic. The issue is with “internet hunting” and as Mike and others at Techdirt have pointed out time and time again, just because you add “internet” to something doesn’t mean it needs a new law. While many people would consider hunting with a mouse in the comfort of your own home immoral, it is, in essence, no different that dragging my sorry butt out to the woods and killing the deer with just the rifle and deer urine God gave me. 🙂
Also, the company I work for makes robots that could quite easily be used to hunt (though they are a bit noisy) and would the same uproar be heard if I hunted via robot 500 meters away instead of via internet 2000 miles away?
It just seems like the people against this are people that think because they don’t think it’s ‘right’ it should be illegal, or people who think all hunting should be outlawed. (Crap, they’re the same people!) 😛
If anyone should make a law against it, it should be at the state level. We have enough Big Government fingers in our lives as it is.
Putting a bunch of semi-domesticated animals in a semi-small pen and killing them without much sport is not *wrong* and needs no laws outlawing it. I don’t think the cattle we use for food are even given the chance to run away, and that’s not illegal. What’s the difference?
Best comment out of the bunch. All the people saying “canned hunts are disgusting” need to STFU if they eat anything that they didn’t chase down on the vast Los Angeles/Hoboken/Miami metro area prairies; in all likeihhod the last meat that you ate was shuffled into a confinement pen and dispatched with a hammer blow to the face, or hung from a chain and had it’s throat slit. Not the slightest bit of sporting chance, just cold clean efficiency (actually not all that clean). Being a carnivore, but passing on the act of actually killing and processing your food to someone else doesn’t make you morally superior, it makes you self delusional and lazy. At least a guy who pulls the trigger on dinner over the internet has actually taken responsibility for taking part in the harvest of his own food.
With all the shit thats going on in the world today you’ve gotta’ whine about the possibility in the future of hunting on the friggin’ internet!
Perhaps it is just me, but I’d really like to see this challenged under the Americans With Disabilities Act. For some people, hunting over the Internet may be the only way they can experience one of the most primal activities of our species…killun thangs.
Mostly, I think it would just be really funny to watch the politicians’ heads spin as they try to be PC to that many groups.
Lets kill two birds with one stone
I think a webcam connected to a turreted rifle is a great Idea, with zoom and Radar/laser range finder. the simple solution is put this system all along the boarders, you aren’t shooting defenseless animals and cure the illegle immigration at the same time. As far as using this for terrorism you would have to go to the rifle, the rifle doesn’t come to you, At most maybe one person “could” get shot, it’s not like these systems are on highly mobile platforms so terrorist can run them down main street. (DARPA has been trying to get a system like that working for years) I’m am amused at a lot of these post’s. I wont hunt anything that cannot shoot back, thats not “sporting”.
I do a great deal of “online hunting” the great thing is, no one gets hurt.
Re: Lets kill two birds with one stone
The idea of aa highly mobile remote-comtrolled platform is a largely solved problem: just replace the tools on a bomb-disposal robot with a modified assault rifle (with a larger magazine to avoid reloading) and control it manually. The problem DARPA are haivng is making a large number of these things operate semi-autonomously, being able to navigate around people and other obstructions, anmd recognise and engage enemies without attacking civilians. (“Frag everything which moves” until you run out of ammo is clearly inappropriate.)
Better than (or inaddition to) fixing rifles in turrets along the Mexican border, they could put recruiting offices all along the border and conscript anyone whoi tried to cross without a visa, send them off to Iraq or some otehr trouble spot, and give them latrine duties, potato peeling, sentry duty in the immediate vicinity of the borders between warring nieghbourhoods, and along the new wall in Baghdad (and any otehr tedious, disgusting, or dangerous duty which needs to be done, but which Americans don’t want to do).
Terible Opioin
I’ve read probably dozens of articles on the internet hunting topic (many of them tech dirt links) and this opinion to me seems 1)Extra Biased 2)Counter to the facts and most 3) Deliberately misleading.
If you’re not going to call your summations and opinions reporting, then lets just call this post a terrible, unsubstantiated, and misleading summary and opinion about an apparently misleading article. (And no I didn’t even care to click the link and read the article) and your defense of Carlo just detracts from Tech Dirts rep.
According to Petey the only reason the hunting business didn’t fly was because Texas outlawed it so it’s not that there wasn’t a market for it. With all the free hype this operation got it would seem hard not to make some money off it.
As a long time tech dirt reader I’ve come to understand everything is written from a Tech Dirt angle. But this isn’t an angle this is just a plain bend of the facts and it’s sloppy. You guys can do better than this.
Feel free
Feel free to correct any spelling and gramer.