Internet Hunting Banned in California

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."

You're violating my rights!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's my God given right as an American to be able to sit at home in my underwear and kill shit.

Can't control offshore shooting

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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.

Re:Can't control offshore shooting

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Can't control offshore shooting

[TheSync]

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".

Re:A good use for this.

[fr2asbury]

Hey, there's an idea. I could set up a fly swatter with a web cam and let the world kill my bugs for me!

Re:A good use for this.

[Frogbert]

For instance, here in New Zealand we have possums introduced from Australia

You can't complain, over here in Australia we have New Zealand Citizens introduced by New Zealand. I kill about 50 a year and still they come....

Re:A good use for this.

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Your possums are different. They're also a native species which makes them less invasive. In NZ the possums were introduced from Australia. In Australia there are predators and food is relatively scarce. New Zealand has no predator species for possums and they thrive.Possums strip vegitation and eat birds eggs. Since NZ has no real predators, the birds breed slowly. This means they are threatened by possums. NZ has approx 70million possums. Sure we run over a few, but not that many.

Re:A good use for this.

[zootm]

That would be fair fight, at least with a deer.

I wouldn't class fighting against a herbivore at all as fair, but go figure.

Re:A good use for this.

[rossifer]

Assuming evolution works, then the fact that our bodies don't make us good hunters should tell you something... like perhaps we shouldn't be hunting.

Ah, but our big brains and opposable thumbs make us very good hunters (us very good tool builders/users can use tools to overcome our lack of running speed, sharp claws and sharp teeth). The calorie density of meat is the only reason your distant (and your fairly recent) ancestors flourished and resulted in a population that included you.

Among primitive man, nobody who lived very long was a vegetarian, and nobody had the luxury of buying their meat already killed and cleanly presented in the supermarket. If they didn't kill the animal themselves, they knew who did.

If you're a strict vegetarian, congrats, I haven't got much criticism for you (though I do dislike a lot of the self-deceptive propaganda you read). If you're not a vegetarian and you buy meat from a supermarket, there's only one response you deserve:

Sit down and shut the fuck up.

Having someone else kill your meat for you doesn't put you in any better ethical position than a hunter who kills his own meat. If anything, the hunter has some control over how much pain the animal feels as it dies. You'll need to be keeping a close watch on the slaughterhouse that supplies your butcher to claim the same ability. As someone who had an informal tour of an operating slaughterhouse, I know I can do better with a rifle. And after taking that tour, which showed me just how horrible the process is that puts cleanly wrapped cuts of meat on the supermarket shelf, I took up hunting again.

Regards,
Ross

A vegetarians perspective...

[danro]

If you're not a vegetarian and you buy meat from a supermarket, there's only one response you deserve:
Sit down and shut the fuck up.
Having someone else kill your meat for you doesn't put you in any better ethical position than a hunter who kills his own meat.

I am a vegetarian, and I agree completely.
If anything, I have a lot more respect for someone that hunts his own meat (as long as he/she is a good shot and knows his limitations), than for someone who buys it neatly packaged at a supermarket.

But, people, if you are going to hunt, be responsible and learn to fcking shoot!.
People willing to take a shot at an animal, but not willing to put in the time to be good enough to make a clean kill (or track down a wounded animal whatever it takes) makes me sick.
They're not any better than "internet hunters".

Re:A good use for this.

[zaroastra]

Among primitive man, nobody who lived very long was a vegetarian, and nobody had the luxury of buying their meat already killed and cleanly presented in the supermarket. If they didn't kill the animal themselves, they knew who did.
Indian culture is vegetarian (India indians, not native americans). As they are the second most populated country with around 800 million habitants (or almost a billion as americans call them) I would say that you can be vegetarian, live long and procriate.
On top of that mankind has another source of proteins that doesnt involve hunting. Man started domesticating animals thousands of years ago.

Re:A good use for this.

[feed_me_cereal]

I don't think he ever said that a vegetarian civilization can't survive, just that we evolved as hunters. From what I've seen/read/learned, I agree. Obviously we're no longer cave people and are advanced enough to be able to take full advantage of our role as omnivores, all the way up to making the decision to be vegetarians. As a vegetarian, I'm more comforted by the fact that I choose my lifestyle in spite of my evolutionary history, rather than to suit it.

ethics of hunting

[willCode4Beer.com]

You make a very good argument, and I agree with you on most points but, I might disagree on some details.
Although I agree with you on the role of evolution, I disagree with using it as justification. Primitive man also killed his competition for a better chance of propagation. As for our biological requirements, you are completely right.

As for having someone else (butcher) kill an animal vs killing it yourself, I believe that killing the animal yourself is more ethical. Look at how much meat is thrown away

Re:A good use for this.

[eclectic4]

"though I do dislike a lot of the self-deceptive propaganda you read"

I'm a vegetarian by default, as my wife's a vegan. Critical thought. If you use it then you are going to be fine. Consider your source, find corroboration, etc... You know, the stuff that no one does anymore...

The far bigger problem, as you pointed out, is the sanitized version of eating meat that most enjoy, and take for granted on levels not seen in many other arenas (in other words, self-deceptive propaganda). Coupled with the fact that we do not need to eat meat to survive (our "big brains" have taught us how to eat healthier on a no meat diet) and the "propaganda" swell shifts. While waiting for the next Outback Steakhouse commercial, my wife has stacks of University studies to read showing the health benefits of going veggie.

Re:Stay Home?

[mrchaotica]

Without the people that actually partake in the aforementioned, you'd never eat a good seafood or rare-meat meal again.

Considering that we're talking about Internet hunting (whatever that's supposed to mean) here, I doubt that we're talking about professionals here. Hunting for food is a whole lot more respectable than hunting for sport (and "hunting" over the Internet isn't respectable at all).

Re:Stay Home?

[mrchaotica]

How about with your bare hands? Ok, how about with a rock? A spear? A bow? An old-fashioned flint-lock rifle? A shotgun? A modern high-powered rifle? That same rifle with a high-power scope on it, allowing a 200-yard shot?

I have no problem with any of those, because you're still the one dealing with the body afterwards. IMHO, it's the personal involvement that's important. "Internet hunting," though, would be no more involved than a game of Quake, and I think with the abstraction people wouldn't have

Re:You're violating my rights!

[nametaken]

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

Wow, that wasn't inflammatory.

Re:You're violating my rights!

[Jonathan]

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!

Re:You're violating my rights!

[Spock the Baptist]

Sir,

Allow me to introduce myself.

I am Nefarious D. Felineslammer, and my company is Cat Assassins of Texas.

I can be reached at 1-800-DEADCAT, that's 1-800-DEADCAT.

Our motto is, You Pay, We Slay.

Call now to hear your last meow.

Hunting

[Mark_MF-WN]

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

[bigpat]

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

[dabigpaybackski]

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...

Re:Hunting

[sconeu]

It's quite amazing, actually; they have evolved in a very short span of time

For those living in Kansas, they have been intelligently designed in a very short span of time.

Re:Hunting

[jericho4.0]

Whatever pal. Your paranoia is right in line with what we're talking about. "a suburban area with lots of woodland" is not where wolves are going to hunt your children.

I live in BC, in the woods. We have wolves, bears, and cougars. There was a steaming pile of bear shit in my yard 2 days ago. The thought of needing a shotgun to protect myself is ludicrous.

Re:Hunting

[antiMStroll]

A friend who lives in Ontario cottage country fell asleep on the back deck after a particularly good summer party. He woke in the early morning hours to the click-click sound of a family of wolves checking out the remanants in the BBQ. The meeting scared them more than they scared him, all three instantly bolted.

Re:Hunting

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

Wolves and other large predators. Read his comment, please!

Wolves have been driven to near extinction in a great chunk of Asia, Europe and the Americas. Nobody likes living with large predators on their doorstep, and for that reason, they've been trapped and hunted to a shadow of original population levels.

Yes, we caused the problem, but our options right now to fix it are as follows: reintroduce high end predators to areas now contested for use with humans ( I favour this approach, and some places like the Algonquin Park have a blanket ban of wolf hunting, but not all agree ) or manually cull deer, etc, numbers. It's really that simple.

Of course, yes, the ecosystem will eventually rebalance to a new, diversity-poor, deer-heavy state if we do nothing - just as it has for 'so many millions of years' - but I like the ecosystem we have now, and I'd like to see steps to see it preserved.

-- YLFI

Re:Hunting

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Wouldn't eatting insects make sense, though? Could we design beef flavored roaches? Assumed, since most everything tastes like chicken, that chicken flavor would be too easy.

Re:You're violating my rights!

[flyingsquid]

I don't enjoy killing animals- I find it disturbing, to be honest, to look something in the eyes and consciously end its life- but every once in a while I take up the invitation to go hunting and kill a deer or a snowshoe hare, because I just feel there's something hypocritical about being unwilling to kill animals, but being willing to have someone else do it for you and pick up the results at the supermarket. I figured I either had to be able to kill something myself, or become a vegetarian.

That being said, what really pisses me off is hunting wolves from aircraft in Alaska. Where the hell is the sport in that, I want to know.

Re:You're violating my rights!

[rossifer]

So you kill a deer for no other reason that to make yourself feel better and less of a hypocrit? Somehow, I don't think the deer cares about your feelings.

Way to completely miss the point. He wasn't asking for the deer's approval, just like you don't ask the cow. He's merely taking personal responsibility for the killing, which you appear to object to.

There is a school of thought among hunters that personally using the resources provided by an animal you killed provides meaning to the death. Death is a part of life. If taking an animal's life helps to sustain my own and if the animal felt as little pain as possible during that death, I'm not going to feel the slightest bit guilty about my actions.

And that doesn't only mean I'm comfortable buying meat at the supermarket that someone else killed for me. I also include hunting for meat myself, exactly like the poster you replied to.

Regards,
Ross

Re:You're violating my rights!

[Chris Carollo]

The amorality in the act of killing animals is in the waste factor.

No, the amoraility in hunting is killing another living animal for fun, and claiming it's a "sport".

Re:You're violating my rights!

[ScentCone]

No, the amoraility in hunting is killing another living animal for fun, and claiming it's a "sport".

Except, you call it a "sport" and I call it "putting lean, healthy meat in my freezer, and helping to manage wildly out of balance deer populations."

I know a lot of hunters, and I don't know a single one - at all - that takes pleasure, per se, in the act of killing the animal they're taking. The nearest thing to it would be the pride they take in being good at it - which results (by way of a well placed shot) in a humane kill, and less wasted meat.

Now, I do know people that take great joy in swatting mosquitos, or killing rats in their house, etc. Those are people that kill a creature just for their own convenience/happiness. But those are as likely to be non-hunters as hunters.

PETA approved

[jpu8086]

PETA [peta.org] likes this legislature. They pulled for it. They proclaim victory on their front page.

Re:PETA approved

[shuz]

*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

Re:PETA approved

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

*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.

Re:PETA approved

[RichardX]

Vegans run the risk of B vitamin deficiencies (esp. B12)

Not really. It's pretty easy to live a vegan lifestyle without any B12 worries. You just have to ensure you have a large enough intake of it. I'll take that as a worry over heart disease, CJD, bovine growth hormone, not-fully-cooked-meat and the myriad other concerns that come with a meat based diet any day.

Re:PETA approved

[networkBoy]

Bullshit, I've been Vegan for 12 years and don't take any vitamin supplements and I'm perfectly healthy (and yes I've had blood tests). So before you repeat what you've read on the Internet check your facts.

Funny, I'm taking a nutrition class (part of a RN nursing program) right now and we just finished covering vegan Vs. vegitarian, Vs. omnivore diet. In a strict vegan diet there is _no_ source of B12. It is an animal derived (or synthetic) material. If you consume enough enriched vegitarian (not veg

Re:PETA approved

[dasunt]

In a strict vegan diet there is _no_ source of B12. It is an animal derived (or synthetic) material.

Technically, B12 is from bacteria (and bacteria aren't animals (shouldn't an RN know this?)). Eat enough dirty plants, and vegans would do absolutely fine without any other source of B12. (The amounts needed are miniscule).

For those of us who don't like dirt in our food (most of us in the modern world), or want to be on the safe side, there are vegan sources of B12 available.

If you want to cr

Re:PETA approved

[ashmedai]

Does this mean no more playing punch the monkey?

I'm a member

[DaveAtFraud]

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.

Hunting on foot much safer

[shuz]

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.

Re:Hunting on foot much safer

[Frodrick]

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.

Re:Hunting on foot much safer

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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.

Calling bluff.

[Vo0k]

That was 20 years ago and the deer population still hasn't fully recovered to normal levels, though it's getting there through nice, sustainable, controlled growth, encouraged by more aggressive wildlife management policies (more hunting).

Don't you see some error in your way of thinking? How is KILLING more deer to allow RECOVER the original population? Or you mean the population is STILL TOO HIGH (despite the mass dying because of the harsh winter) and you intend to help recover its original, lower numbe

Damnit!

[Stonent1]

I had just wrote up an shell script to do all my hunting for me, and now this!

Snide remark

[mondoterrifico]

I highly doubt the submitter's genes would be alive today, if not for the hunting of "innocent" animals, whatever the hell that means.

Re:Snide remark

[Skim123]

Word. I can understand being against hunting for sport, but hunting for food, resources, etc.... what's wrong with that?

Re:Snide remark

[mrchaotica]

One answer would be that humans have the right not to be killed solely because they are human, but that's not a very satisfying answer -- it smacks of chauvinism and "might makes right".

Humans don't have the right not to be killed. Humans just have a mutual agreement not to kill each other (usually, at least) because working together is more useful. All this "morality" stuff is just an excuse to give to people who can't understand the benefits.

Re:Snide remark

[Bamafan77]

"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

Re:Snide remark

[InfiniteWisdom]

Oh that's right. I forgot that you can download the dead animals over the Internet these days. Sorry.

Re:Snide remark

[EtherAlchemist]

I guess it's all in the head of the hunter. Personally, I've eaten everything I've ever hunted and killed and have baited nary a one.

I don't see the sport in baiting and animal, hiding in a tower and then shooting him from above. I don't get the people like Ted Nugent who think they have to show themselves as the ultimate predator and hunt elephants (I actually caught part of that on TV, how sporting can Ted be to have a bunch of Africans trap an elephant so he can shoot it with a god-caliber rifle up cl

Re:Snide remark

[Solandri]

Obviously you've never been hunting if you think it's just a matter of aiming at an animal and pulling the trigger. I hunt, with a camera, and oh how I wish it were as easy as just pushing an "I Win" button. There's a great deal of tracking, prediction, guesswork, and luck before you even get to the point of sighting the animal. That's the sporting element that's missing in a hunt-over-the-web setup. Without that element it's, as the aphorism goes, like shooting fish in a barrel.

Overpopulation

[ari_j]

Yes, it would be much better for animals to have their population controlled by Chronic Wasting Disease induced by overpopulation and destruction (by humans) of their habitat, rather than controlling the population through conservation techniques such as licensed and regulated hunting, which not only controls the population but also funds the conservation efforts and studies.

Yes, death by overpopulation, malnourishment, and disease is much better for the "innocent" animals than feeding my family after I

My rights online

[AthenianGadfly]

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.

Murder by Internet Proxy?

[FreeUser]

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 "

One-Click Hunting

[rice_burners_suck]

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. :-)

Fighting back

[rkww]

Obviously the problem is the poor critters have no way to fight back - now, if we could electrify a few keyboards ....

oh, the frags

[Valcoramizer]

dang, I was up to 60

Wow

[ZorbaTHut]

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

[oldwolf13]

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

[Monkelectric]

The trolling is actually *MUCH* better than it used to be. I've actually "come back" to slashdot after having given up. The real abuse on slashdot right now is the modding system. People are using the modding system to attack opinions they don't like. Try even the most polite and well reasoned critisism of apple, and youre gone.

MOD PARENT TO APPLE HATER HELL

[jericho4.0]

What "critisism of apple"? What are you implying? You're lucky I don't have mod points!!!

Re:Wow

[Schlemphfer]

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

[ajs]

"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.

Back under your bridge

[jaymzter]

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.

Re:Back under your bridge

[doublem]

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

Re:Back under your bridge

[kaalamaadan]

The midwest is more infested with humans than with deer.

Where can I apply for a human hunting license?

Re:What the F?

[Eagle5596]

Agreed, there was nothing insightful about his comment. There is no "human infestation". Humans in the midwest aren't putting themselves in a position where other humans in the midwest are starving as a result of their overpopulation. In fact, the Midwest is pretty well thriving these days (minus Ohio), and has a much more managable population level than the coasts.

spears only!

[dukerobinson]

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

Ban Internet hunting!

[TripMaster Monkey]

(set humor=1)

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

(set humor=0)

Hicks

[br4inst0rm]

Damn those inbred internet hicks [aol.com]... Damn them to hell [microsoft.com].

Floridian Spammers

[Linker3000]

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.

Why does there need to be a law for everything?

[linguae]

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?

Re:Why does there need to be a law for everything?

[doublem]

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.

Think if it from a hunter's perspective

[Infonaut]

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.

Hunting is NECESSARY

[DrugCheese]

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.

Re:Hunting is NECESSARY

[bobbis.u]

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.

About time...

[__aaclcg7560]

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.

Haha, "sport" hahaha

[wtom]

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...

Mixed feelings

[realmolo]

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.

More teddy bears and padding for our cells

[ishmalius]

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.

Sad really

[Quirk]

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

Editorial in story submission

[AtariDatacenter]

...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? :)

Was this important to you?

[BrookHarty]

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?

[Malc]

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

[glrotate]

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.

Hunting should be promoted in all forms

[tacocat]

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.

Speaking for us carnivors.

[Big Smirk]

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.

Re:Wait... Logic Check...

[daft_one]

My bow and I would like you to come within 100 yards and say that ;-)

Re:Wait... Logic Check...

[sellin'papes]

I think the big difference is that when you are hunting you actually have TO GO to the animals environment and kill it. You have to crap in the bushes.

so you're crapping in the bushes and a deer comes along and you shoot it with your high powered rifle, easy right? But on some level you now understand what its like to crap in the bushes like a deer. And for understanding this, the killing process becomes very real.

over the internet it is no longer hunting. Its a video game where things actually die, there is no connect.

Re:Wait... Logic Check...(offtopic but true)

[EtherAlchemist]

But on some level you now understand what its like to crap in the bushes like a deer.

Or piss on one.

My dad and I were hunting years back on a tree farm. About 20 minutes before sunrise (can't shoot here till then) he went off to take a leak. A minute later I hear some loud rustling and he yelled astring of curses.

He had walked up to a clump of tall grasses and was relieving himself when a buck jumped up from within the grass, where it was sleeping, and ran off. My dad had pissed on it and woke it up.

He said "imagine being that buck's wife and trying to explain who's scent that is!"

Re:Wait... Logic Check...

[doublem]

This isn't about it being "unsporting" This is about it being dangerous.

Let's imagine this scenario:

Some punk kid steals a wallet, and signs up for some online recreation in an Internet cafe. They decide to engage in online hunting.

Now, another punk kid runs through the filed where the gun is set up, slips and falls on some deer guts.

The punk in the Internet Cafe thinks it'd be funny to pull the trigger while aimed at the kid.

Or how about the fact that this means unlicensed hunters are essentially o

Re:Wait... Logic Check...

[kaiser423]

In hunting, the challenge is what you make it.

Yes, there are a lot of road hunters and people who just sit by camp and hit things way off in the distance (sniping does require some form of skill though).

But then there are those who like the challenge. Some of my friends hunt with hand-made spears. Some of the crazy ones go out with a pack, and make the spear themselves in the forest, then hunt. I consider them real, true hunters.

I bow hunt elk mainly, and I'd say there's a slightly greater than 50% chance I'll bag one in a season. We go out into true wilderness, walking and do it. I don't shoot unless I'm closer than 30 yards, which is generally pretty hard in the area we hunt. Then I pack it out 10 miles on my own back. My father loses 20 pounds every hunt we go on.


But let's get realistic for a second. Since when was nearly any hunt that man did fair? We're smarter, and we had the mental capabilities to easily slaughter huge numbers of animals for 10,000+ years. Complaining about hunting "no longer" being a challenge is a bit disingenuous. It hasn't been a challenge for thousands of years. We used to light fires to drive animals towards the hunters, or drive whole herds of animals off of cliffs. Baiting and partially domesticating wild animals with offers of food, then slaughtering them. I'd say that things are a lot fairer now than they were thousands of years ago, but not quite as fair as they were maybe 200 years ago. Largely due to it being more of a sport now than sustenance. Back in the day, it didn't matter if you killed a whole herd of 200 animals to get one, because you'd die if you didn't get that one. Today, we just go out and get that one. If we don't, then we hit the supermarket.

Re:Wait... Logic Check...

[GoofyBoy]

I think the orginal poster is talking about tearing the heart from a 9 foot tall bear with your bare hands then holding it over your head on top of a hill shouting in sheer barbaric primal release.

In keeping with my roots, I do a similar thing when I buy a plastic and styrofoam refridgerated package of boneless, skinless chicken breast for $1.99/lb.

Re:Wait... Logic Check...

[Greyfox]

Where do you get your chicken breast for $1.99/lb? It's around $6.50 here. I think I would probably hold it over my head shouting in sheer barbaric primal release too, if I found it for $1.99/lb...

Re:Wait... Logic Check...

[mrchaotica]

Ironically, you'd really "know how the meat is produced" if you hunted it yourself...

Re:Wait... Logic Check...

[Inspector Lopez]

What would be useful here is a new term that would permit the distinction between "hunters" and "dickwads with big guns." Currently we lump the two groups together and heap derision upon both for the sins of the latter (and some don't like the former, either).

In my case, I *have* been deer hunting and goose hunting --- myself armed with a camera, and my companions with guns. I've had a bleeding deer carcase in my lap for 45 miles bouncing along in an open jeep in 25F weather, ... and thought myself lucky to have had an interesting day.

I don't think I could pull the trigger, and there is that little issue that I'm a vegetarian. But I don't hate "hunters."

I do, however, hate dickwads with guns. In my day job, I put up scientific apparatus in remote places, and dickwads with guns use my antennas for target practice, chop up my coax, steal the guy lines, and generally remind us that the gene pool has a shallow end.

But if there is one group of people who should *really* loathe dickwads with guns, it is ... the hunters, of course. It may be shallow to lump hunters together with dickwads with guns ... but the hunters would not suffer so much abuse if the dickwads with guns went away forever.

Hunters

[Mark_MF-WN]

I used to dislike hunters. Then I met one -- hell of a guy. He gave my family an assload of venison steaks and moose sausage. Damn good stuff. Later, when I took biology in University, I learned about how much of a problem the unchecked growth of American deer populations causes for forest ecosystems, all because of overly strict hunting limits.

As a sidenote, dickwads with anything are a problem. Is there really any tool you would trust a dickwad with? Guns are just a particularly extreme example.

An assload?!

[autophile]

I used to dislike hunters. Then I met one -- hell of a guy. He gave my family an assload of venison steaks and moose sausage.

I don't think this could be funnier if you tried.

--Rob

Re:Priorities -- what can you say for it?

[Morvandium]

How many of you criticising this legislation are actually hunters? As someone who is both a techie and an avid outdoorsman, I don't see any problem with this legislation. High powered rifles do not ensure a perfect hunt. I personally am against confined game farms where a hunters prey is pretty much domesticated, and I have a problem with doing it over a computer. Hunting can and should still be a challenge. I don't see something like internet hunting promoting, for example, an intimate parent/child bond as there's hours or days spent away from other distractions. I mean, seriously, if you're out hunting, you're off in the woods or the field, and there isn't an instant messenger or e-mail to pop up -- hell, damned cell phones are enough of a problem in the outdoors. It comes down to that Jurrasic Park conundrum: just because you can doesn't mean you should. Hunting over the internet is not a right. I can understand the advantage for disabled individuals, but then again, I hunt with people who are "handicapped" under my state's laws, and you know what -- there are already special accomadations for them, such as allowing the use of ATVs while hunting, or allowing the use of crossbows. And yes, fat, lazy Americans should get up off their asses to actually go hunt, if that's what they want to do. Sorry to say it, but every group of Americans could use some Darwinistic thinning -- if you want to go hunt, you should have to figure out how to use a gun, walk through the wilds, etc. Those who can't figure this out, and, say, accidentally shoot themselves, or die in the wilderness... well, go population control. And, I can see where PETA would call this a triumph on their part. I find it kind of odd to agree with PETA on something, because I'm usually against what they have to say. I mean, think about it this way ... what real arguments can anyone make for allowing this? What convincing situations and reasonings can someone present?

Re:News...

[ScentCone]

Why is 'whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine' appended to the end of this story?

Because an unbelievable number of people think like that. You know, people who wear nice leather shoes, eat some meat with their dinner, and who have a domestic cat that, despite eating three times a day in the kitchen, stalks and kills neighborhood songbirds just because it's fun. People are spectacularly hypocritical and uninformed about this stuff, and know nothing about the monumental amount of work and cash that hunters put into wildlife management programs and wilderness preservation.

On tonight's dinner menu at my house: pheasant that my wife, my dog, and I laboriously hunted in South Dakota last October. During that outing we pumped a couple thousand dollars into the vapor-thin local economy, walked over miles and miles of farmland, always filling in the host farmers on what we saw in their cornrows and pastures. The "innocent animal" bit only makes sense if you also consider mosquitos innocent, the earthworms that get sliced up by farm equipment creating vegan meals to be innocent, and so on. Bah. This topic is so rife with nonsensical, contradictory emotional baggage and anthropomorphized Disney-esque pablum. Yeesh.