California to ban internet hunting.

[Angela Harlem]

Yes or no, do you have a problem with this?

Please answer yes or no. I dont want examples of other bads and ills on the net.

 

[BVS]

http://www.live-shot.com/

Yes I've been there and I've seen interviews on TV with the man starting it.

You have yet answered one of my questions.

 

[nbcrusader]

The woman can choose what she does or does not wish to do. The animal does not have that choice. It's not all that hard to see the difference.

Does it really matter whether or not the animal has a "choice"? You suggest a principle that society is not going to follow by any means.

And I highly doubt you could say that women subjecting themselves to internet manipulated sexual acts have truly chosen this activity as what they really want to do.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

And I highly doubt you could say that women subjecting themselves to internet manipulated sexual acts have truly chosen this activity as what they really want to do.

I don't doubt that there are women who get forced into it, but there are also some women who aren't, and who enjoy doing this stuff. And if they're willing participants, and are being safe about everything, I don't see why I should stop them from doing what they want. If they're forced into it, that I do not agree with.

Anywho, in regards to the hunting thing-if you hunt animals for food purposes, I can understand that. We're part of the food chain, they eat us, we eat them, that's how the world works.

I don't agree with hunting for non-food related purposes, i.e. putting the animal's head on your wall or making a bear rug out of them or something like that. I've just always thought that was rather stupid and pointless.

Angela

 

[BAW]

I don't doubt that there are women who get forced into it, but there are also some women who aren't, and who enjoy doing this stuff. And if they're willing participants, and are being safe about everything, I don't see why I should stop them from doing what they want. If they're forced into it, that I do not agree with.

Anywho, in regards to the hunting thing-if you hunt animals for food purposes, I can understand that. We're part of the food chain, they eat us, we eat them, that's how the world works.

I don't agree with hunting for non-food related purposes, i.e. putting the animal's head on your wall or making a bear rug out of them or something like that. I've just always thought that was rather stupid and pointless.

Angela

I agree with all of this.

Its kind of a stretch to say all women involved in internet pornography are being exploited. Some of them are actually doing the exploiting. They are out to make money first and foremost and they do it in the most surefire way possible...with their bodies. They probably don't care that some random guy will max out his credit cards or neglect his family to feed his porn habit as long as they get paid. They will tell a lonely, unnattractive guy on a webcam that he is the sexiest thing in the world as long as the money keeps coming in. So who is really exploiting who? And what about gay porn or the men involved in straight porn? Are these guys being exploited too or is it just women?

And yes, there are women out there who do it because they like it.


I don't agree with hunting for sport either. If someone actually needs to hunt to put food on the table, fine, but like Angela said, its stupid and rather pointless to do it so you can hang some poor animal's head on your wall. And sitting behind a computer screen shooting animals seems like the epitome of laziness. If you absolutely must go shoot an animal, get a license and go do the work yourself. Sheesh.

 

[BVS]

Just a little update and some clarification.

This has been a subject I've been following for awhile and was glad DMA posted this.

Being that I'm from Texas I've heard wisperings about this guy for awhile. I've seen some TV interviews he's done back in TX and then just saw one recently here on Chicago news.

I'll clarify a few things.

- As of now hunting is not taking place over the internet. Target practice is being offered over the internet but until containment fences are completed and the animals "brought in" hunting will not be offered. Speculation is end of summer beggining of fall.

- The reason for containment fences instead of regular fencing(3' barbed wire) is that the majority of animals offered are not indigenous to the area and they want to keep them inside their property in order to build population and not have surrounding leases benefit. This is actually common for "exotic game" leases.

- There will be someone manning each gun station. So there will be an employee that can override the gun if it's aimed at an illegal target. This is something that originally wasn't there and has been added as of recent. I believe the head of wildlife or the hunting commision or whatever is his title, forced this policy. Now where these manned positions are in coordinance with the actual gun and how many guns are being manned by each employee is unclear.

- There are only a few species that can be hunted year round and there some species that law requires you to be present and the shooter to tag the animal within a set hour window. Therefore only the species that can legally by hunted this way are allowed. Half of the species listed on the website we don't eat, they are just shot to display. The company providing the service will do the taxedermy or the processing of the meat and send it to your house.

-------------------------------------------------

Now here's where my concerns lie:

- There hasn't yet been any explanation as to how the wounded are taken care of. A true conservationist will track the animal down finish the kill or make sure the wound will not kill(this still isn't fullproof for infection can occur and spread)

- The "manned" guns. There is still a lot of room for error on this one. Yes the employ has power to override but the response time from when the user wants to pull the trigger or a quick last minute move to another target will almost be impossible to control especially since the only line of communication between the two is an optional Instant Message.

- Shooting a rifle especailly at long range while holding it in your hands is hard enough. So many factors go into it, a pulling of the trigger instead of squeezing, a sudden breath, etc can send you ever so slightly off -- now think about doing that with your mouse. Hell I click on Lemonade by accident while trying to come in here. Now try and do all this with a moving animal. Far, far, far too much room for error.

- My last concern is something I haven't seen addressed and that's how they plan on controlling the population. Most leases have a set number of members and or a set number of kills. Being that this is over the internet I don't see how this can be regulated legally.

(Yes it may come as a shock to you all that this gun control freak knows a lot about hunting and a lot about guns. I was actually a very good marksman in my younger days and competed a few times. Go figure.)



This is being sold as a way to allow the disabled to hunt but many conservationist(responsible hunters) and even the head of the commision in Texas are very apprehensive of this guy. I think it's very poor gun safety and very irresponsible hunting.


Plus the licensing becomes moot at this point. I can see why California didn't want anything to do with this, it's a legal nightmare.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I agree with all of this.

Its kind of a stretch to say all women involved in internet pornography are being exploited. Some of them are actually doing the exploiting. They are out to make money first and foremost and they do it in the most surefire way possible...with their bodies. They probably don't care that some random guy will max out his credit cards or neglect his family to feed his porn habit as long as they get paid. They will tell a lonely, unnattractive guy on a webcam that he is the sexiest thing in the world as long as the money keeps coming in. So who is really exploiting who? And what about gay porn or the men involved in straight porn? Are these guys being exploited too or is it just women?

And yes, there are women out there who do it because they like it.


I don't agree with hunting for sport either. If someone actually needs to hunt to put food on the table, fine, but like Angela said, its stupid and rather pointless to do it so you can hang some poor animal's head on your wall. And sitting behind a computer screen shooting animals seems like the epitome of laziness. If you absolutely must go shoot an animal, get a license and go do the work yourself. Sheesh.

Thank you. Agree wholeheartedly with you about the computer hunting, too, by the way.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

I don't agree with hunting for non-food related purposes, i.e. putting the animal's head on your wall or making a bear rug out of them or something like that. I've just always thought that was rather stupid and pointless.

You may see it as stupid or pointless, but it does not hurt another person. Absent a harm, why should the government get involved?

 

[madroseka]

The whole issue seems strange in all aspects. Most hunters I know are disgusted by this. Its not even real hunting! It takes everything out of hunting that most hunters like. It seems it is more directed at those who want to get a sick, cheap thrill of killing something. And to make money but thats a whole other story...

 

[melon]

You may see it as stupid or pointless, but it does not hurt another person. Absent a harm, why should the government get involved?

The whole issue seems strange in all aspects. Most hunters I know are disgusted by this. Its not even real hunting! It takes everything out of hunting that most hunters like. It seems it is more directed at those who want to get a sick, cheap thrill of killing something. And to make money but thats a whole other story...

Bingo.

Of course, nb, I feel your pain. When the government legislates morality, I ask the same question. In this case, however, I think it boils down to "animal cruelty." Even in conventional hunting, devices that make it "too easy" to hunt are banned. Ethically speaking, I think the idea is to "level the playing field" somewhat in hunting, whereas here, animals are sitting ducks.

Melon

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

The whole issue seems strange in all aspects. Most hunters I know are disgusted by this. Its not even real hunting! It takes everything out of hunting that most hunters like. It seems it is more directed at those who want to get a sick, cheap thrill of killing something. And to make money but thats a whole other story...

Exactly. And by killing an animal for that purpose, I would say that that is harming an animal. Unless hunters who do that can give a reason exactly why they do that, like stated, it just seems like some cheap thrill, like humans are just trying to prove that they're on a higher plane than other animals or something. At least when you kill them for food, there's a reason there, because we need food. Do we need an animal's head on a wall?

Angela

 

[Liesje]

Now here's where my concerns lie:

- There hasn't yet been any explanation as to how the wounded are taken care of. A true conservationist will track the animal down finish the kill or make sure the wound will not kill(this still isn't fullproof for infection can occur and spread)

This would be my greatest concern. I come from a family and community of hunters and very rarely can you kill or completely bring down a deer with a single shot. Most of their time hunting is spent tracking. I think my dad is more skilled at tracking than he is with a rifle considering firing a shot takes a second and tracking the animal can take up to two days.

I don't understand the arguement that this would give disabled people a chance to hunt. Basically when you deer hunt you sit perfectly still all day, so if you're unable to move around a lot, this shouldn't be a problem. I know everyone deserves a chance, but sometimes a line has to be drawn. If you can't draw your bow or sustain the kick of a rifle, maybe hunting is not for you.

I've never had a problem with hunting for sport, but really when we say "hunting" we're referring to white tail deer. There are WAAAAAY too many white tails in Michigan (because there are no more wolves) so even with everyone shooting their limit (two bucks and one doe I think), there is STILL exponential population growth. Just a few miles up the road we have the highest ratio of car-deer accidents than pretty much anywhere else in the world. My family DOES hunt for the actual meat, not for the rack. My grandpa has health problems and can only eat very lean meat. Venison is about as lean as it gets. We use every last piece of the deer. The meat that isn't good for steaks gets cubed for stew and my uncle takes the hides and bones for these crafty projects he does. I know a guy that usually kills his limit each season and donates all the meat to food kitches for homeless people. I doubt anyone in my family would ever consider internet hunting. They'd rather play hunting computer games (which they already do when they're not actually hunting).

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Yes I've been there and I've seen interviews on TV with the man starting it.

You have yet answered one of my questions.

You never really asked any to begin with, and your personalizing is very predictable.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Yes or no, do you have a problem with this?

Horrors of horrors, people killing animals. I couldn't care less.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Bloodlust.

 

[BVS]

You never really asked any to begin with, and your personalizing is very predictable.

Take a look at my first post. Those are questions.

And no I'm not personalizing it. You were the only one defending it as real hunting and said you saw no real case for my use of "irresponsibility".

Come on Mac you're capable of better, don't accuse without facts.