Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. United States Your Rights Online

Internet Hunting Banned in California 984

Posted by timothy
from the crisis-of-the-nanosecond dept.
TheSync writes "California has banned Internet hunting. Emergency regulations will be put in place by the California Fish and Game Commission, and legislation (SB 1028) is in the works. West Virginia is considering legislation against it as well. Hunters consider hunting by robot and mouse click 'a digrace to the sport,' whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Hunting Banned in California

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:44PM (#12471321)
    It's my God given right as an American to be able to sit at home in my underwear and kill shit.
    • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:58PM (#12471469)
      How can they control offshore shhoting? Breed rabits etc in some shit-hole and charge your credit card.

      Of course most likely you'd not be really killing real animals, any more than you're talking to an innocent teen when you dial 0900-VIRGIINS. Instead you'd pay your $50 or whatever and the whole shooting would be mocked up, probably from Discovery channel footage. That way a few thousand cyberhunters get to "shoot" the same bambi and nobody really gets hurt except a few credit cards.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08, 2005 @07:03PM (#12471522)
        Instead you'd pay your $50 or whatever and the whole shooting would be mocked up, probably from Discovery channel footage.
        I bet that Christmas lights guy is behind this...
      • An I'm thinking, imagine Internet hunting in Africa...go on safari without leaving home. This could be a bigger money-maker in areas with elephants, lions, etc. It could even generate cash to replenish the "spent" animals.

        It is so sick, yet I think it is way too early to consider banning it, and I don't buy the "less noble than 'real hunting' concept".

    • by nametaken (610866) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @07:01PM (#12471502)
      whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine."

      Wow, that wasn't inflammatory.
      • by Jonathan (5011) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @07:14PM (#12471596) Homepage
        Wow, that wasn't inflammatory.

        Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals -- they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!
      • Hunting (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mark_MF-WN (678030) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @07:46PM (#12471901)
        Interesting side note: American forests have been experiencing a major decline in their biodiversity over the last few decades. The cause? Deer. Because of strict limits on the hunting of deer, deer populations in the US (and no doubt Canada as well) are now so large that they are decimating forests.

        There wouldn't be a problem, except that the predators that would normally keep deer in check are largely absent. No one wants cougars or packs of wolves living near their town. But without these top predators, deer populations have nothing to keep their numbers down -- except hunting.

        Therefore, interestingly enough, conservation demands that we hunt more deer.

        It's not unlike the paradox of the principal-of-least-harm. In order to minimize the number of animals that die on account of your diet, it's best to eat nothing but large free-range ruminants. A vegetarian diet results in enormous numbers of rodents and insects being killed by threshers and harvesting machinery.

        I guess I'm a little off-topic now...

        • Re:Hunting (Score:4, Insightful)

          by bigpat (158134) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @08:28PM (#12472218)
          What do you mean nobody wants cougars or wolves near their towns? There are a lot of us willing to allow larger predators back where they belong. We may or may not be a minority, but I know we are a far cry from "No one"

          I am not against hunting deer. Nor against hunting deer via robot hunters as long as the venison is taken with the intention of consumption.

          But the argument that it is either hunting or letting the big bad wolf eat your children is not going to scare all of us. People can exists with cougars and wolfs just fine with the proper precautions.

          The results of killing all the wolves has had bad effect in the hundred years since their elimination. As you say biodiversity has been harmed by largely unrestrained deer populations in some areas, but increasing hunting allowances is not the only answer.
          • Re:Hunting (Score:5, Interesting)

            by dabigpaybackski (772131) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @08:54PM (#12472419) Homepage
            In many areas of the U.S., particularly the Northeast, the gap made by the wolves' extermination has been filled by coyotes, who are extraordinarily adaptable and defy eradication efforts better than larger predators. Visit the northern woods and you'll see (if you're very lucky, that is) coyotes that weigh twice as much as their relatives in the Western U.S. It's quite amazing, actually; they have evolved in a very short span of time to take down the larger prey that wolves and cougars once hunted, though some of this is attributed to cross-breeding with the red wolf population. Coyotes are, in a real sense, becoming the wolves. I think this is a long-term shift in the ecological balance that will not be reversed, even as large predators are slowly introduced into the areas depopulated by extermination campaigns.

            But the public in most areas is largely unaware of what sort of damage the burgeoning deer population can do to the woods. They just graze and graze and cause automobile accidents. And interestingly enough, they are involved by far in more fatal attacks on people than any other North American wild mammal. Yet people fear the quite miniscule numbers of wolves and cougars...

  • PETA approved (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jpu8086 (682572) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:44PM (#12471328) Homepage
    PETA [peta.org] likes this legislature. They pulled for it. They proclaim victory on their front page.
    • by shuz (706678) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:48PM (#12471372) Homepage Journal
      *sigh* PETA is just too extreme. And red meat is just too tasty.

      -It' ok to eat fish because fish don't have any feelings. -KC
      • *sigh* PETA is just too extreme. And red meat is just too tasty.
        That's odd. I thought PETA stood for People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.
    • by ashmedai (869288) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:50PM (#12471389)
      Does this mean no more playing punch the monkey?
    • I'm a member (Score:2, Redundant)

      by DaveAtFraud (460127)
      People
      Eating
      Tasty
      Animals

      Meat, ummmmm. Yummy. One of the best "roasts" I ever had was elk but my brother-in-law didn't "shoot" it by clicking a mouse. Ditto for some deer jerky one of the folks I used to work with brought in.
  • The main reason everyone is so upset/scared over internet hunting are the safety concerns.

    Also hunting on foot is a lot more noble and is a tradition that has been carried out for thousands of years.
    • The main reason everyone is so upset/scared over internet hunting are the safety concerns.

      I totally agree. A live human who stumbled into the "kill zone" would have a life expectancy of about 30 seconds. The seeming anonymity of the net along with the similarity to various person shoot-em-up video games would ensure that.

    • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @07:15PM (#12471613)
      The main reason everyone is so upset/scared over internet hunting are the safety concerns.

      Not really. The internet hunting takes place on private grounds nowhere near populated areas, so it's safe. The concern is really the morality of it.

      Also hunting on foot is a lot more noble and is a tradition that has been carried out for thousands of years.

      Indeed.

      And I might add this: most countries where hunting has been a tradition for centuries couldn't afford not having hunters. What I mean is, the hunter is part of the ecological balance of whatever area they hunt in. Take them out of the picture, and suddenly certain species of game, previously hunted, see their numbers soar, destabilizing the ecological niches of numerous other species, and introducing diseases and malformations in their numbers, due to overpopulation.

      In many countries, hunters regularly conduct what they call "cynegetic management", or "sanitary shootings", which is essentially the removing of weak and diseased surplus animals. Those sanitary kills can also preserve endangered species, by lightening the burden on their food sources and the predatory pressure on them. This game management is healthy for the environment, which is what most green anti-hunting folks fail to understand.
  • Damnit! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stonent1 (594886) <(ten.kralctniop.tnenots) (ta) (tnenots)> on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:45PM (#12471337) Journal
    I had just wrote up an shell script to do all my hunting for me, and now this!
  • Snide remark (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mondoterrifico (317567) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:45PM (#12471340) Journal
    I highly doubt the submitter's genes would be alive today, if not for the hunting of "innocent" animals, whatever the hell that means.
    • Word. I can understand being against hunting for sport, but hunting for food, resources, etc.... what's wrong with that?
    • "I highly doubt the submitter's genes would be alive today, if not for the hunting of "innocent" animals, whatever the hell that means."

      Good point. Sometimes it's easy to forget that evolution made us ominivores. Sure the animals didn't do anything to directly hurt us, but they also just happen to contain nutrients that are necessary for us to live. Of course technology advances in agriculture have overcome much of this, but that still doesn't change how we fit into nature in the absence of technolo

  • by AthenianGadfly (798721) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:45PM (#12471341)
    I agree, this is integral "Your Rights Online." I protest this grave infringement against my inherent right as a human to operate a deadly weapon using some Flash game on my desktop.
    • I agree, this is integral "Your Rights Online." I protest this grave infringement against my inherent right as a human to operate a deadly weapon using some Flash game on my desktop.

      How long before a real-life hunter walks into the frame, and some jackass takes a potshot, killing a human being by clicking their mouse? Will it really matter all that much (aside from lawyer wrangling in the court) whether the murderer-by-click is a snot-nosed prepubescent who figured he'd never get caught and it would be "
  • by rice_burners_suck (243660) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:46PM (#12471348)
    What's wrong with One-Click Hunting? Did Amazon patent this or something? I think it's a good idea. Your dinner comes walking by... click, and it's ready for pickup. This is significantly better than having to duck behind some bushes, trying to be all quiet, and then shooting your dinner. What if a fellow hunter is on the other side and you get shot? This way, nobody has to be present when bullets get fired... nobody, that is, except your dinner. :-)
  • by rkww (675767)
    Obviously the problem is the poor critters have no way to fight back - now, if we could electrify a few keyboards ....
  • dang, I was up to 60
  • Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZorbaTHut (126196) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:46PM (#12471356) Homepage
    Way to make an unbiased and factual news post, Timothy!

    Yeah yeah "but timothy didn't say it thesync did" ever heard of being an editor? Ever heard of a respectable news site?

    The funny part is that the first quote *is* a quote (minus the blatant spelling error, of course - congratulations again!) while the second part is complete and total fabrication.

    You know what? Stuff like this doesn't help *anyone*. If you need to put words in people's mouths to make your point, your point has failed.
    • Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

      by oldwolf13 (321189)
      I generally don't bitch about slashdot..

      dupes don't bother me, and the trolls... well I know what I was getting myself into.

      But yeah, this pushing of your ideals on the rest of us is bullshit.. even if I agree with you about sport hunting. (you want to hunt for food/clothing, that's a different story).

      Headlines with political bias should be edited.
    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Schlemphfer (556732) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @07:45PM (#12471895) Homepage
      Ever heard of a respectable news site?

      Dude...don't you know what site you're visiting? But I have to say, it's refreshing to see a bias AGAINST cruelty on here for a change. Check out the majority of responses to this story for the typical Slashdot reader response: Beef is yummy. Let's eat meat. Screw PeTA. Etc.

      But this time, here's a clear-cut case of something grotesquely cruel. I mean, how could a decent person say that it's OK to artificially stock animals in small fenced areas, and then have a remotely fired gun so people can blast these creatures through the Internet? Sorry, that's just flat-out wrong, and even most hunters would say so.

      I thought I'd pass along a couple hunting-related links, taken from just the past couple of days. First, be sure to read Matthew Scully's superb article "Fear Factories," [cok.net] in this week's American Conservative. Animal rights is often incorrectly thought of as some fringe cause, only embraced by people on the left. Here, Scully writes brilliantly about why conservatives should hold animal agriculture in disdain. And he starts his article by mentioning this Internet hunting issue.

      I publish Vegan.com, and I have some commentary on Scully's article on my podcast [vegan.com] from yesterday. You might want to listen to that as well.

      And, what the heck, here's another article [fark.com] taken just today from Fark. One hunter was in the woods making a turkey call. Another hunter came along, thought he was hearing a real bird, and shot the hunter. Because, after all, when you're packing a hunting rifle there's no reason to actually look to see if it's actually a turkey you're shooting.

      I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming: Meat tastes good. Animal rights people are losers. I'm going to go out and have a thick bloody juicy steak -- yum! Because, after all, if PeTA sometimes pisses people off and chooses stupid battles, that clearly means that everytime they oppose cruelty a sensible person should side against them.

      • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ajs (35943) <<moc.sja> <ta> <sja>> on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:43AM (#12475515) Homepage Journal
        "Check out the majority of responses to this story for the typical Slashdot reader response: Beef is yummy. Let's eat meat. Screw PeTA. Etc."

        Those are clearly off-topic rants by people who confuse a desire to prevent random acts of creulty with an inability to cope eating animal flesh. Change your filtering to a threshold of 2 or 3, and most of that problem goes away.

        "[... a conservative] writes brilliantly about why conservatives should hold animal agriculture in disdain. And he starts his article by mentioning this Internet hunting issue."

        Animal agriculture is also clearly an off-topic subject having nothing to do with the issue of point-and-click animal slaughter.

        "I publish Vegan.com"

        Ah... I guess I should have heard the other shoe dropping....

        "One hunter was in the woods making a turkey call. Another hunter came along, thought he was hearing a real bird, and shot the hunter."

        Ok, stupid hunter. That, by the way, is called manslaughter and as you say, "most hunters would agree with that."

        "Because, after all, when you're packing a hunting rifle there's no reason to actually look to see if it's actually a turkey you're shooting."

        I really hope you don't think that anyone thinks this way. Hunting accidents are almost always the fault of some lame-brain who can't tell his head from a moose, and no one is going to defend that kind of thing. Painting all hunters with that rather agregiously wide brush is rather unfortunate, however and borders on a straw man.

        "Meat tastes good. Animal rights people are losers. I'm going to go out and have a thick bloody juicy steak -- yum! Because, after all, if PeTA sometimes pisses people off and chooses stupid battles, that clearly means that everytime they oppose cruelty a sensible person should side against them."

        You understand that this is a collection of straw-man arguments and highly argumentative, right?

        What exactly was the goal of your post? Were you just trying to get a few vegans riled up so that they would read your site, or were you actually trying to engage in some kind of rational discussion?

        If the latter, please try again. Your frist attempt was buried in too much noise.
  • by jaymzter (452402) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:47PM (#12471361) Homepage
    whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine.
    Nice troll. I still continue to be amazed such nonsense makes it into the article summaries. Animals are not "innocent", and in many cases hunting acts as part of the ecosystem, preventing animal overpopulation. It you're going to troll Timothy, try to at least sound intelligent.
    • Hear hear!

      Deer don't inhabit the Midwest, they infest it.

      Humans have pushed out all of the deer's predators, leaving only us and our cars. If we don't hunt them, the ones who would otherwise be taken down by a wold or coyote would starve to death.

      As a side note, I don't hunt and admit I'd probably get sick and throw up if I tried, but I have nothing against those who do as long as they're licensed and follow safety practices.

      I'm glad this is banned. The last thing I need is some jackass 1,000 miles aw
      • The midwest is more infested with humans than with deer.

        Where can I apply for a human hunting license?

  • spears only! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dukerobinson (624739)
    Why is a firearm not a disgrace to the sport? Shouldn't one use a spear? And no atlatls either!

  • (set humor=1)


    Ban internet hunting! We must all do our part to preserve the endangered internets!


    (set humor=0)

  • Hicks (Score:2, Funny)

    by br4inst0rm (875155)
    Damn those inbred internet hicks [aol.com]... Damn them to hell [microsoft.com].
  • by Linker3000 (626634) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:52PM (#12471409) Journal
    Why not tie the system into a selection of security cameras in Florida shopping malls and make it law there that anyone wishing to partake in mass emailing has to wear a bright coloured jacket with a target printed on the back in public - then we could solve two problems in one go!?

    Maybe I get your spam, maybe I don't - maybe you die, maybe you don't; it seems like a fair trade-off.
  • by linguae (763922) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:54PM (#12471421)

    Why does there need to be a law for everything? How can the banning of Internet hunting be regulated, anyhow? What is the state going to do; get ISPs to look at the logs of everybody who are signed up at Internet hunting sites? Doesn't California have better and more important things to focus on, such as balancing the budget?

    • by doublem (118724) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @07:06PM (#12471535) Homepage Journal
      NO, they're just going to shut down anyone who tries to operate an Internet hunting operation in California.

      You see, they don't want unlicensed people using firearms in the state of California, especially when said persons aren't even IN the state but are using Video over IP and a computer to aim and fire a real gun.

      Internet hunting is, form a safety perspective, a very dumb and dangerous idea.
    • by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:42PM (#12472717) Homepage Journal
      Why does there need to be a law for everything?

      I don't think there needs to be a law for everything, but to me this is a case where hunters are saying that they don't want hunting to become inundated with people who are not hunters.

      Hunting isn't just about taking out your high-powered rifle and wasting an animal. You have to be out in the environment. You have to be where the animal is in order to kill it. While the technology for finding and killing animals has become more advanced, there is a connection between the hunter and the prey . I'm not a hunter, but every hunter I've ever talked to takes this seriously.

      It seems to me that one of the primary reasons people go out early in the morning and spend long hours in the woods looking for animals to kill, then doing the dirty work of dispatching the animals and hauling their dead bodies is that they want to be closer to the life and death struggle of nature. They want to feel less removed from it, not more removed from it.

      In that sense, a ban on Internet hunting is a way of saying that they want to preserve this aspect of hunting, so that it is not overwhelmed by people who have no sense of what hunting is all about, and think of it as merely a video game featuring live animals. While I don't hunt because I don't see the need to kill animals in order to feel closer to nature, or in order to prove my dominance over other creatures, I can understand why hunters would want to keep hunting from becoming an exercise that requires no interaction with the natural world.

      As a side note, California does have to focus on balancing the budget, but I hardly think it's a question of balancing the budget or passing a law banning Internet hunting.

  • Tracking and killing innocent animals is NECESSARY idiot.

    Go to eastern Iowa or other parts of the united states (and probably worldwide with other species) and look at the some of the whitetail deer there. Because of taking over more and more land, cutting down more and more trees the population is dying of starvation and disease. Thinning the population is the HUMANE thing to do.
    • Because of taking over more and more land, cutting down more and more trees the population is dying of starvation and disease. Thinning the population is the HUMANE thing to do.

      The most "humane" thing to do would be to stop encroaching on their environment and leave them be.

  • by creimer (824291) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @06:55PM (#12471446) Homepage
    It's about time that they outlawed Deer Hunter [atari.com]. That game ruined my life! Now I'll have time to watch "The Dukes Of Hazard" DVDs.
  • by wtom (619054)
    Yeah, sure it is a sport... Now, being a meat eater, I have no moral objections to hunting... But calling it a sport is silly. You kill an 8 point buck with a bowie knife and nothing else, I will call you a sportsman. You use a high powered rifle or a composite bow? That's hunting... Sport... heh...
  • Well, deer are giant rats with antlers. There are too many of them, and their population needs to be controlled. I have no problem with shooting deer. Even if the meat is just going to be thrown out. I'm generally against hunting, but deer are a problem.

    HOWEVER, rounding up deer and putting them in a pen so people can kill them remotely is just...weird and stupid. So I have to say I'm against it. Should it be illegal? Probably not.
  • I think that hunting by remote control is ridiculous and reflects poor character. Yet what I dislike even more is the attempt by the whiners in our culture to make the world all pink and fluffy, safe and non-threatening. This is the type of weepy hand-wringing that is willing to forbid any type of behaviour for the feeling of comfort and security. The bandana-wearing Madame Dufarge refugees from the 70's have wrought a little bit more of their damage upon the country.
  • I was raised hunting and fishing. Coming from pioneer stock on both sides I was taught to hunt from a very early age and had alot of lore, and, firearms handed down to me. Killing for food is different from trophy hunting, but either way, if you're going to kill; do it cleanly and well, preferrably with one shot from a weapon matched to take down the game you intend to kill.

    I no longer own guns or hunt. I do hike wilderness areas with a camera and nothing but a K-bar for defense and utillity. What is missin

  • ...whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine...

    What do you expect them to do, only hunt down the guilty animals? Perhaps just the carnivores and omnivores? :)
  • by BrookHarty (9119) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @07:02PM (#12471506) Homepage Journal
    I dont see a difference between killing an animal for food or sport, even if the sport is done on the web.

    This sounds like passing a law for PR, nothing else. We dont need feel good, nanny laws created. This is law is purely about ones feeling about hunting, nothing more.

    People need to stop passing more laws for behavior and freedoms of the people, and deal with voilent crimes, polution or robbery. They need to stay out of peoples lives and hobbies.

    If they said "No Church Online" you bet there would be more people talking about this law.

    Serriously, do you need to be told what you can watch, what you can eat, who you can marry, whats proper in your own home? Damn if you people dont see this is a fluff law you are a sheep.

  • Innocent animals? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Malc (1751) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @07:42PM (#12471848)
    What is this innocent animals statement? Is the writer trying cast aspirations about hunters?

    My brother-in-law is hunter in SW Ontario. We all enjoy the spoils of his "sport" Not much of the animal is wasted. Let me tell you, fresh Ontario Bambi steak off the charcoal BBQ is to die for. I have vension steaks and gound/minced vension for chilli in my freezer too, and will be a far healthier for me than N. American beef that has been pumped full of anti-biotics and growth hormone, fed things that aren't part of its normal diet and has more chance of giving me nvCJD than anything from the UK. And yes, I am aware that there is an epidemic in parts of N. America where elk and deer are dying of a disease similar to BSE.

    For all those meat eaters out there who make anti-hunting comments: are you prepared to kill you own animals, gut them, and prepare them? Or will only accept it in the sterilised format from the supermarket? Think about it. Some people have good reasons, some are just hypocrits.

    Finally, I do realise there is some basis for the author's statement. I do realise that there are "hunters" out there who are just in it for the guns and killing. I don't have much respect for them either. Maybe there is a cultural difference between the US and Canada too (somebody please enlighten me) - muzzle-loading season for deer around here lasts one week, the rest of the time my brother-in-law has to hunt with a bow and arrow (crossbow in recent years actually).
    • Sadistic people (Score:4, Insightful)

      by glrotate (300695) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @11:15PM (#12473316) Homepage
      I don't believe in animals rights, and I know god wanted us to eat them otherwise he wouldn't have made them taste so good. However, people who kill animals for entertainment have mental issues. Any psychologist will tell you that children who kill animals for fun are prime candidates to become serial killers.

      If you want to go out in the woods playing super predator, tracking and stalking, have fun. When you catch your prey why not shoot it with a paintball gun and call it a day? I don't get the thrill out of killing animals.
  • It's so much more humane to blow the brains out of your food than to ruthlessly rip it out of the ground. Plants have no chance. They have no fight or flight mechanisms.

  • by Big Smirk (692056) on Monday May 09, 2005 @07:34AM (#12475767)
    Thank god I mostly eat meat from the grocery store - there they only kill the guilty animals! "whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine." Oh, and I here they only pluck guilty vegitables as well. Don't want to kill the innocent type.

In order to dial out, it is necessary to broaden one's dimension.

Working...