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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, internet hunting, politics
Companies: humane society
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ME2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The facade of usefullness
If you really cant figure out anything usefull to do pretend your doing something and claim your helping even if there is no problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One thought.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't Tell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I couldn't afford the bandwidth though. Not at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Poor article, the author is misinformed and misses the mark by a mile, no pun intended...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Banning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No - forget that - they are politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not?
Do we need to have a thousands of animals dying everyday before it makes sense to ban it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me explain..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me explain..
I also think boiled spinach is dugusting, but I don't see any reason to pass laws about it, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me explain..
The old "I eat what I kill" defense. Isn't that what Jeffrey Dahmer did?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me explain..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the article
I would love to see how that would work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Battlefront is getting close 2 home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
o_O
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop wasting time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop wasting time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make terrorism easier!
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got Milk?
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)!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What it is..
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..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What it is..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
> "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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
The article didn't say that and to imply that it did is just plain dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're all morons. Especially you, Carlo.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ernest Benn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Overcast
If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going.
- Professor Irwin Corey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wasted
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So everyone crank up your bittorrent client and start downloading movies. The fate of the free world depends on you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Humane Society Funds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't like Amuurrica you can gitt out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say What
To the person who reported this, thank you. This is a true gem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the big deal?
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I must be a ditz!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Armchair Hunting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re-think your thinking
http://mysite.verizon.net/mdhunter alert/Internet%20Hunting%20II.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter Peter Grab your ankles
try using rational thought instead of reacting emotionally to everything you read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Hunting
As for canned hunts, these people are scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet Hunting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet hunting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet hunting
Signed,
Hannibal Lecter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OnLine Homerun King
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what legislators should concentrate on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shooting caged animals remotely
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I won't be making friends today.
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!) :P
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets kill two birds with one stone
I do a great deal of "online hunting" the great thing is, no one gets hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets kill two birds with one stone
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terible Opioin
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feel free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]