# Ideas for remote hunting laws



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

Doc tried to bring this up, but it got lost in the craziness, so I thought I would try to move it and see if there might be some good ideas floating around.

I think first we need to articulate why we are against this recreational activity. Just what is it about remote hunting that goes against the grain. Is it purely a concern for the animal, and how can one be sure of their shot from a remote location? Is it the fact that some of us think it takes the word hunt out of hunting? Is it because we are jealous because we can’t afford to do it, so others shouldn’t be allowed to? Just what is it we are against, because it can’t be that we are against killing deer. 

Then, if we can come up with a reason, or list of reasons, maybe we can discuss the differences between that and other forms of hunting, to make sure we won’t be stepping on the toes of another form of recognized and accepted form of hunting. 

After that maybe just maybe we can come up with some ideas as to how a decent law might be drafted to stop this before it gets off the ground.

After words we might tackle WHA, but I thought this one “might” be easier so we should start with this one first.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

One of the "arguments" you hear from the antis is that hunting is evil because its about killing (and I am not going to debate whether killing is good, bad or valueless). Its easy to defeat that sort of psychobabble based on the total hunting experience. that experience doesn't exist with this internet nonsense. Its nothing more than the killing. I know lots of people who have no problem with hunting ducks or doves but get upset at live pigeon shoots and in some states (like Ohio) pigeon shoots are illegal even though shooting pigeons is a really good idea given the disease and nastiness that is spread by them and a few good organized pigeon shoots in cincinnati (and encouraging farm boys to trap a bunch of them) would do wonders and cut down on histoplasmosis (sp).

pushing a button miles away isn't hunting and lets see if we can keep this away from the anti xbow nonsense


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

I (gasp) agree with Jim.

This is not hunting, it is video gaming with live targets.

It contains NO aspect of traditional hunting, has NO value to the hunting community as a whole, and is an all around terrible idea.

It would totally invalidate the concept of fair chase.

It casts negative dispersions on true hunting and its participants by minimizing the skills, effort and accomplishment required to actually hunt deer succesfully and overglorifies the killing that, while necessary for a successful hunt, is a very small and infrequent part of actual hunting.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

thesource said:


> I (gasp) agree with Jim.
> 
> This is not hunting, it is video gaming with live targets.
> 
> ...



you are completely right on this issue and you are correct that it has no value to hunting, cheapens the term and makes it all about killing. You can do the exact same thing with a photo-simulated deer. its as sporting as throwing the switch on an electric chair and claiming you took out some serious desperado man to man.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

JimC - "you are completely right on this issue"

thesource - "I (gasp) agree with Jim."

:faint: 

See we can work together. This is a great start. :cocktail: :nixon:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Marvin said:


> JimC - "you are completely right on this issue"
> 
> thesource - "I (gasp) agree with Jim."
> 
> ...


chances are people who both claim to bowhunt are going to agree on alot more stuff than say a political board where you get sound thinkers and whacked out PETA loving Moonbats together


----------



## Silver Pine (Dec 9, 2005)

Hunting to me is the joy of falling out of bed at some unreasonable hour, swallowing something similar to coffee and chewing foam targets shaped like a sandwich then wandering around the woods. Wondering if my back will straighten out or if my knees will work well enough to drive home is only the "cherry on top".  

$0.02 - Internet or remote "game-playing" has nothing in common with hunting. 

:cocktail:


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

I think JimC and thesource have nailed it.

Internet "hunting" is nothing more than attempt to turn a sport which is rooted in conservation into a video game, where the object is not to overcome and defeat the sharp senses and defenses of game animals, while using the knowledge of how deer and other animals use the land, and how to best set up taking full advantage of wind direction, sunlight, and cover, leveraging the learning from observation, transforming it into simply step up to the computer, point and click and a few days later have your meat, pre-processed, arrive frozen at your doorstep.

Hunting is far more than simply harvesting an animal. Going afield to scout, identify movement patterns, select stand placement, cutting shooting lanes, choosing a specific animal to hunt, observing feeding preferences and condition of habitat and the changes which occur naturally year after year, all get removed from the internet hunting equation. Not good at all.

Safety is also a serious concern, as the potential "lessons" one can glean from this is not productive to promote responsible handling of any implement, firearm or bow. 

Finally, in my own opinion, the video gaming of hunting should be reserved to actual video games played in an arcade or on an X-Box/ Playstation. Fantasy and reality when it comes to hunting should not be blurred, and this is precisely what internet hunting does, blurs the realities of hunting into a fantasyland, by removing the work involved, the schooling and practice required, the conservation elements while showing a complete disregard for the herd and magnificent animals themselves. 

Wildlife are not toys, and one should never "internet shop" for game.

NYS passed a law banning this practice in NYS. Below is the summary of the bill:

BILL NUMBER:A7032

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the environmental conservation law, in
relation to prohibiting on-line shoots

PURPOSE: Prohibits the creation or maintenance of a website or hunting
gallery from any location within this State for purposes of the on-line
shooting of targets or animals.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: The Environmental Conservation Law is amended by
adding a new section 11-1906 to prohibit the creation or maintenance of
a website or hunting gallery from any location within this state for
purposes of the on-line shooting of targets or animals.

Section 71-0923 of the Environmental Conservation Law is also amended to
outline penalties for violations of subdivision one or two of this bill.

JUSTIFICATION: This bill is in response to Live-Shot.com, a Texas based
website, which allows users to hunt and target shoot with live ammuni-
tion over the Internet. Not only does this have potential safety prob-
lems, but hunting via the Internet takes the honor and the sport out of
hunting and turns it into the equivalent of an online video game. New
York State cannot allow this behavior to occur and this bill would
prohibit the creation of such websites and shooting facilities.


Governor Pataki signed this into law September 16, 2005.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

I'm in the mood for some sort of a charter of some kind. one that can and will encompass the beliefs of a nation. Kind of like our government, They gives us the guidelines for which we must work and allow each individual state make even more stringent rules as they see fit for each states sportsmen and women. Now I am not suggesting we use P&Y ...maybe as a starter that we can work with to come up with a more modern approach while respecting our past.


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

When hunting most of us, even the most despised of Joe ******* firearms hunters aren't likely going to pull a trigger with the same reckless abondon we much might press a mouse button with when playing a shooting game.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

You all are a bunch of bigoted, selfish, divide and conquerers who try to force your constrictive notions of ethics on others. How shameful! I'll bet Boob and Crotchet agree with you!:thumbs_do :hand: :lalala:


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

PMantle said:


> You all are a bunch of bigoted, selfish, divide and conquerers who try to force your constrictive notions of ethics on others. How shameful! I'll bet Boob and Crotchet agree with you!:thumbs_do :hand: :lalala:


I know......

I'm MEAN.... Part the vast right-wing conspiracy. I'm an evilangelist, One oof the Dangerous Christian conspirators.... I'm heartless, uncaring, insensitive and... and.... and MEAN



Thanks Hillary, I can feel the LOVE...... Do you feel my pain?? 

:chortle: :chortle: :chortle:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

PMantle said:


> You all are a bunch of bigoted, selfish, divide and conquerers who try to force your constrictive notions of ethics on others. How shameful! I'll bet Boob and Crotchet agree with you!:thumbs_do :hand: :lalala:



I was wondering which person would hijack this thread and you were one of the two I was guessing would do it


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

Jim C said:


> I was wondering which person would hijack this thread and you were one of the two I was guessing would do it



Dude, you're a genius. Don't ever let anyone tell you different.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

PMantle said:


> Dude, you're a genius. Don't ever let anyone tell you different.



I am, my condolences to those who were not similarly blessed:wink:


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> I know......
> 
> I'm MEAN.... :


Sorry doc, I can't agree with you there. You are a lot of things, but mean ain't one of them. Others here are, unfortunately.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

PMantle said:


> Sorry doc, I can't agree with you there. You are a lot of things, but mean ain't one of them. Others here are, unfortunately.


Thanks, I was being tongue in cheek. Those who frequent the political forum have seen this one from me before.... Kinda like when I became a "Democrat for a Day" :chortle:

Thanks bro..... It was all in fun.....


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> Thanks bro..... It was all in fun.....


You had to at least smile at Boob and Crotchet. :wink:


----------



## aceoky (Mar 17, 2006)

I agree 100%!

Also, a very big part at least as important as "the kill"(if not more so, ) IS the "just being out there", the smells of the woods, the sights and sounds, the challenge, NONE of which can be possibly duplicated by "this".......it's simply NOT hunting........and it "robs" those who participate in my own opinion of the REAL experiences of what hunting IS really about , at least to most people (and all that I know).......

I personally consider EVERY hunt a success, when I did everything "right", whether I kill anything or not (odds are IF I did everything right, I at least had the chance to "kill", several times for various reasons, they walk........still I feel it was a "successful hunt".......yet another thing they're "cheated out of" doing this "thing".....imho

I have serious doubts, though that this "thing" has much support; (and would bet much of what it does have comes from Anti-Hunting groups who would love little more than have this " take off", and become "popular", which would no doubt only serve to help their cause).....


How could anyone call this "hunting" with a straight face??? NO challenge, NO being "out there", nothing substantial learned.........whatever it is, it certainly is NOT hunting.....and should never be called it (even jokingly imho).....


----------



## aceoky (Mar 17, 2006)

PMantle said:


> You had to at least smile at Boob and Crotchet. :wink:



Yep. that one was GOOD! :cocktail:


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

Well so far we have, a safety concern, and a bunch of because “to me it’s not hunting” I ask you is this the best reasons we can come up with? If we can assure it’s as safe is regular hunting, would that change your opinion? And how can we justify the “to me it’s not hunting”? I know this sounds like it’s going down the same old path, but I’m being serious here, I promise I won’t bring up the xb thing. How much weight should be given to “tradition” and what is commonly considered “hunting”? How much weight should be given to property owners “rights” to do what they want on their own land? How much weight, if any should be given to the big tent?


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

PMantle said:


> You had to at least smile at Boob and Crotchet. :wink:


It was great! Poop and Dung, Boob and Crotchet, hey, if we cannot poke fun at ourselves, we have lost the ability to laugh and smile.....


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Free Range said:


> Well so far we have, a safety concern, and a bunch of because “to me it’s not hunting” I ask you is this the best reasons we can come up with? If we can assure it’s as safe is regular hunting, would that change your opinion? And how can we justify the “to me it’s not hunting”? I know this sounds like it’s going down the same old path, but I’m being serious here, I promise I won’t bring up the xb thing. How much weight should be given to “tradition” and what is commonly considered “hunting”? How much weight should be given to property owners “rights” to do what they want on their own land? How much weight, if any should be given to the big tent?


I believe NYS's law is pretty logical. Safety and hunting isn't a video game. This again, goes back to the foundations of modern hunting (regulated seasons) and the reasons for this being rooted in conservation, which involves far more than killing an animal.

In a wee bit, I'll post the full text of the Law....


----------

