I think that hunting game animals over the internet would never be a viable thing, law or no law. Somehow I have a hard time buying the idea that the real concerns of the politicians is the welfare of game animals, however. Nip public use of the technology in the bud, yes; concern for Bambi, no.

I agree, actually firing and killing an animal on the internet, well that is going to far.
This will probably evolve into "hunting" without actually killing the animal.
You will aim and "shoot" getting a picture of where the crosshairs were on the animal when you "fired". A real life videogame so to speak.

I have seen this game mentioned on all sorts of websites, that normally don't pay attention to hunting.

And all the comments have been negative.

I think that to have "real time" accuracy, you would almost have to be on the same server with the active device, be it camera or shooting game with a rifle. The technology is doable, but not practical over multiple hop "pings". JMHO.

Whoever concieved that abomination needs to get out of their cubicle once in a while as does anyone who endorses it. That garbage doesnt reflect well on real hunting and will probably be used against us by the antis.

Good to see it taking a fall.

In most all sports there is an area which is reffered to as "out of bounds." This idea of shooting animals via the internet is certainly just such an idea.

Boy am I going to get flamed, but I dispise laws like this.

First, I do not agree with internet killing. I will not even call it hunting.

However, I do not like the government telling me what I can and can't do. I do not want the government to tell me what my morals are.

quote:

"We don't think Californians should be able to hunt sitting at their computers at home," said Steve Martarano, a spokesman for the state Department of Fish and Game.

Who the hell is he to tell be what I can do. What ever happened to freedom of choice. Apparently California feels that I don't deserve the right to make the choice by myself. Whats next? Freedom of speech? Freedom to actually hunt.

The government needs to make laws to protect me and others. However, no one is hurt internet hunting. In fact, if the meat is donated to charity, it could be a good thing. The only thing I see bad is that the anti's will use it against us, but they are going to do that anyway.

This is a "feel good" law which actually does no good, yet destroys the freedom of choice that I view so highly.

Its not right but we could make the people who participate think they actually shot and then send them some synthetic set of horns in the mail as their trophy.They might not know the difference.It might also keep that mentality out of the woods,that is just plain laziness!

old fart - the governmet says that you can't use lead shot or shoot deer with an m60. it also says that you can't drink and drive or kill someone, either. you want to argue with them about that?

this is a good law, and the reasons for it are good, including the fact that people should NOT "hunt sitting at their computers at home."

I don't agree with the firing at game animal thingy over internet at all. So I agree with the passing of the law banning the act of hunting over internet. But I do think it should be limited to big game animals or animals requiring a separate tag.

I see just the sheer logistics of the operation being rather difficult. Imagine a couple hundred people all requesting for the same trigger...

Now if we start talking prairie dog towns...

irwin

What if they offer standard triggers such as remingtons version or even winchesters or a premium like a jewel or timney? Then they can choose a caliber and then an action too. and optics are also an option.
All kidding aside these things will never happen.I dont think any of this will go past canned hunts on game farms.At these locations it most probably could be a possibility but anybody in such sad shape had better be worring about other things.

Gotta agree with oldfart.
Forget about hunting ethics. It ain't none of the gubments business. It ain't about hunting or killing, its about people Control!
I think its a stupid idea. But then, some folks hunt animals with a sharp stick!

You know, the "don't tell me what to do" argument only goes so far. The fact is, there are a number of laws that limit our activities, be it tags, hunting methods, seasons, etc, etc.

This is just a game reg, like minimum caliber size on a muzzle loader, etc. Is it a good one? No, but it's not as bad as the "shooting from your computer" idea. JMO, Dutch.

The collision of new applications of technology versus the "way we have done it forever" is just getting started, I think. It is absolutely correct to say that this is not hunting as most recognize it. But, let me throw out this question, would it be OK if the "shooter" got to pick his preference of Angus, and after shooting it was dressed, cut and wrapped, flash frozen, then shipped to the "shooter"? How about remote fishing done it a similiar fashion? If you take the "wild" out of it, does that make a difference? Should some paper pusher somewhere have the right to make that decision for all people? Do I have the right to make that decision (binding) on you?

It is not hunting as I know it, by any stretch of the imagination, neither is going to the store, but going to the store is not illegal. If you are dealing with reputable people on the other end, this might be better than going to the store, better product quality.

I would like to see "hunting" removed from the name, it is not. I would like to see "wild game" excluded. I think there are some technical challenges to the technology, but they could be overcome. Then, I wonder if I could/would use it?

Any thoughts?

There is no doubt in my mind that the motivation for the law-makers who propose and back this bill is not consideration for the game animals. In fact, I believe there's little doubt that it's anything other than a left-wing bandwagon to make the liberal politicians look like they're cracking down on [animal cruelty, gun ownership, irresponsible hunting, American sloth] (choose your topic).

That being said, if a law is proposed to give felony drug convicts who used a handgun a mandatory minimum sentence, or repeat rape offenders a mandatory life sentence, etc., and the true motivation is to make the politician look tough, does that detract from the importance and utility of the bill?

I think it would be hard to argue that there is any possible way that this "internet huntint" could promote or even resemble responsible shooting or hunting. It also seems to devalue the importance of wildlife, which I think all true hunters appreciate, making living, breathing animals into expensive targets.

I understand the principle of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile," but at it's most extreme argument, this advocacy for anarchy, which I don't think any sane person desires. There have to be some laws, many of which protect the people from themselves. I share the concern of those who say "but what will they ban next," but I think the internet hunting is something that could also easily snowball on us.

quote:

Originally posted by 8MM OR MORE:

I would like to see "hunting" removed from the name, it is not. I would like to see "wild game" excluded. I think there are some technical challenges to the technology, but they could be overcome. Then, I wonder if I could/would use it?

Any thoughts?

Interesting, this causes me to pose a couple questions.

If only farm raised exotics were offered, the name was changed to "Advanced Internet Grocery Shopping", and only the meat was shipped no hide or horns, would anyone care?

Would commercially raised and slaughtered livestock still be somehow morally superior?

I agree that the core of the revulsion to this idea is that it is being associated with hunting. But keep in mind the anti-hunting public will view this as a victory to ban a kind of hunting. It doesn't matter to them if we agree it was hunting or not.

quote:

Originally posted by TheBigGuy:

quote:

Originally posted by 8MM OR MORE:

I would like to see "hunting" removed from the name, it is not. I would like to see "wild game" excluded. I think there are some technical challenges to the technology, but they could be overcome. Then, I wonder if I could/would use it?

Any thoughts?

Interesting, this causes me to pose a couple questions.

If only farm raised exotics were offered, the name was changed to "Advanced Internet Grocery Shopping", and only the meat was shipped no hide or horns, would anyone care?

Would commercially raised and slaughtered livestock still be somehow morally superior?

I agree that the core of the revulsion to this idea is that it is being associated with hunting. But keep in mind the anti-hunting public will view this as a victory to ban a kind of hunting. It doesn't matter to them if we agree it was hunting or not.

I don't think there would be an uprising from the public against "Beef on the Hoof" of your choosing. I'm not sure there is a moral high ground in this arena, something has to die for there to be meat on the table.

That is a real different thing than the sport of hunting that most of us are accustomed to, wherein the objective may indeed not be meat on the table. It may be for trophy, personal challenge, or some personal reason that does not have table meat as part of the picture, all of which I can understand even if I do not choose a particular reason for myself. It is revolting to me to call meat shopping over the internet "hunting". That just does not even begin to do the differences between them justice, although some would call that splitting hairs, I'm sure.

I guess the next step would be a ground based drone of some sort that does the gound work for you, that would cross my line for sure!!

The government should look after the financial affairs of the country and little else. That being said, I am against the internet hunting nonsense. Too bad some people have such a low amount of respect and personal responsibility that the govt thinks it needs to tell us all what is right and what is wrong....heck, they're mostly crooks themselves.

The thing that is ironic is that they have the game and fish department involved, even though the game is not even in that state. Basically, they want to control what people do on the internet. With so many more dangerous sites out there, it strikes me a odd that they are going after this one while leaving the more dangerous sites/ideas alone.

I'm sure that the "internet hunting" people will have safeguards in place to prevent wounding or bad shots. If so, I can find no reason why this will hurt people or not be humane to the animals, unlike the other laws people have been comparing this to.

It all comes down the government forcing the people to abide by a set of politicians morales, and that is what I oppose.