# Now that the anti's have banned internet HUNTING!!!



## stresspasser (Jan 21, 2004)

Will they go after other forms of hunting? High fence, bait,ect.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

*Not Necessarily a Bad Thing*

This push to ban internet hunting was primarily made by Sportsmen's groups, not the anti's. To give you some idea of what this involves, Online Hunting and Shooting is a means using the Internet, where folks can register and pay a fee to a point & click hunt. This point & click results on the "business end" of a live firearm, bow or other implement shooting at targets or game. In other words, hunting via online methods would simply enable folks to sit in their den, and harvest a game animal thousands of miles away. I do not believe any sportsmen or women would find this sporting, ethical, fair chase, or even safe, as how can one safeguard the discharge of a weapon using remote technologies.

Also, if an animal were to be wounded, who would track the animal? Video games are one thing. Actually participating in a hunt online is something else.


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

stresspasser said:


> Will they go after other forms of hunting? High fence, bait,ect.


What do you mean will they ?

They have been going after high fence, bait, hounds and other forms of hunting for years.

*Currently in terms of pending legislation ....*

The hsus is pushing for the passage of the following legislation which could be considered as anti hunting.

In Alabama HB 108 A and SB 69A which would prohibit the shooting of animals not indigienous to the state of Alabama. 

In California AB 1587 which would require that the killing of fallow deer be a method of slaughter that is generally accepted by the veterinary profession as reliable, appropriate, and as rapid and painless as possible. 

In California SB 662 which would require that the killing of certain small game birds be governed by the same provisions for humane slaughter that are currently prescribed for other farmed animals including cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and other poultry.

In Michigan they are pushing a voter referendum for 2006 that would ban the hunting of mourning doves.

In Michigan HB 4848 which would prohibit a person from buying or selling the right to hunt a non-native wild mammal held in an enclosure in the state of Michigan.

In Minnesota HF 1311 and SF 2252 which would prohibit the hunting of mourning doves

In New Jersey A 2452, A2634, A2704, and S 700 that would ban bear hunting

In New York A 5877 and S 2993 that would ban the hunting of non native animals

In New York S 1240 That would ban hunting within enclosed facilities

*****

*And in 2005 alone they also attempted to push for passage of ...*

In Alabama HB 557 that would have banned the hunting of non indigenous animals

In Maine LD 314 and LD 1093 That would have banned the use of bait to hunt bear

In Maine LD 1093 that would have banned the use of hounds to hunt bear

In Maryland HB 371 and HB 1609 which would have prohibited bear hunting

In North Dakota HB 1367 which would have banned the use of bait to hunt game animals


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Tim4Trout said:


> What do you mean will they ?
> 
> They have been going after high fence, bait, hounds and other forms of hunting for years.
> 
> ...


Yep. They've been after this for years. On the NY side, these 3 bills mentioned are in committee, hopefully myred there. We continue to monitor these bills like a hawk. If we receive any movement, we will let you know.
And, high fence, heck, the Libs in NY aren't targeting high fence. Just fence. This would be extended creatively to any property that has any fence on its land, like an old, dilapitated barbed wire fence that once existed but has long since been abandonded. Creative pukes. Also the farm bill that would effectively make hunting a felony if you shoot an animal on a farm. That one is stuck in committee, under agriculture committee. Interesting to note that all of these bills were crafted by Democrats.


----------



## stresspasser (Jan 21, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> I do not believe any sportsmen or women would find this sporting, ethical, fair chase, or even safe, as how can one safeguard the discharge of a weapon using remote technologies.[END QUOTE] some might find fence, bait, bow or gun as unethical also.I say to each there own.


----------



## bow weevil (Oct 31, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> This push to ban internet hunting was primarily made by Sportsmen's groups, not the anti's. To give you some idea of what this involves, Online Hunting and Shooting is a means using the Internet, where folks can register and pay a fee to a point & click hunt. This point & click results on the "business end" of a live firearm, bow or other implement shooting at targets or game. In other words, hunting via online methods would simply enable folks to sit in their den, and harvest a game animal thousands of miles away. I do not believe any sportsmen or women would find this sporting, ethical, fair chase, or even safe, as how can one safeguard the discharge of a weapon using remote technologies.
> 
> Also, if an animal were to be wounded, who would track the animal? Video games are one thing. Actually participating in a hunt online is something else.


Safeties were in place to remove the likelyhood of an accidental misfire, or a person firing at an inappropriate time. After the animal was shot, the "guides" working for the outfitter recovered the animal, field dressed, had the animal processed, and took care of shipping to the client. I wouldn't care for this type of hunting, but others thought it was worth trying. I believe the clients they were marketing to were disabled ex-hunters. Not a bad idea in that context. For someone bedridden or otherwise incapable of going on an actual trip, this would be the closest thing to a hunt that person could get. 

I think we need to stop criticizing how other people can hunt/fish/whatever and start treating all sportsmen like allies. I am a bowfisherman, and there are many so called sportsmen doing everything they can to remove our privileges to get out on the water. Even to the point of considering contacting PETA. PETA started a new campaign shortly after, it might be coincidence, but suspicious nonetheless. I have no doubt that if we are fighting eachother, the PETArds will make short work of banning our way of life. Get the gun hunters to say that bowhunting is unethical, then turn on the gun hunters, and so on.

Thats what my little pea brain thinks anyways.


----------



## WVbarebow (Sep 26, 2005)

*We should be taking care of our own problems*

Hunters should be taking care of high fences and baiting themselves. Just like we did with internet hunting. Hunting is supposed to be a highly skilled endeavor that benefits wildlife and promotes self-reliance and good mental and physical health.

We shouldn't allow the lazy and unskilled to succeed, much less thrive as they do now. Nothing behind a fence is wild. If it's not wild then it is farmed.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

WVbarebow said:


> Hunters should be taking care of high fences and baiting themselves. Just like we did with internet hunting. Hunting is supposed to be a highly skilled endeavor that benefits wildlife and promotes self-reliance and good mental and physical health.
> 
> We shouldn't allow the lazy and unskilled to succeed, much less thrive as they do now. Nothing behind a fence is wild. If it's not wild then it is farmed.



how do the lazy and unskilled succeed? why do you care what other people do as long as its legal? worry about yourself, I will worry about me etc etc


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

*Hunting is pursuit in the woods, not in the living room*

Hunting is a sport which demands hunters be out in the woods, understanding how animals use the land, and picking the best place to get the best opportunity at harvest.

Certainly guides help increase the chances, but many use guides when hunting different places, lands, etc., that may present different sets of dangers to the hunter, like venomous snakes, hidden old gold mine shafts, etc. Still, the one hunting is out in the woods, and must aim and shoot at a live target. This does things to even the most seasoned hunters, the adrenaline rush must be contained to successfully and accurately shoot at the game to harvest it.

Internet "hunting" is not hunting. Guides place the guns in stands, and the gamer simply plunks down some cash, sits in their living room, waits for an animal to walk through, then points and clicks from the comfort of the living room.

This is not hunting. This is gaming. Hunting requires and demands far more than the shot. All of this is eliminated from Internet "Hunting."

Also, what about the observations sportsmen and women make regarding habitat conditions during their hunt? How can anyone report or at least note the appearance of browse lines, or other indicators of a declining eco-system? No, hunting on line is not hunting, its gaming. This isn't about gaming. OUr sport involves far more than simply shooting an animal. If anyone of us doesn't recognize and understand this, I do not know what to say.


----------



## Andrewwilson19 (Nov 18, 2005)

I'll hit a Anti in the Mouth with a Monkey Wrench...Play with me... Aint going to ban nothing from me...


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

*Internet Hunting*

Intentions regarding Internet Hunting (for disabled, bedridden ex-hunters) is certainly noble, but how does one actually safeguard this service to be extended only to those who have legitimate handicaps? This is not easily done. Sure, the intention may be to extend this type of service to quadrapalegics, but, without face to face verification, one cannot completely say that internet hunts are only being extended to handicapped.

Heck, we have enough issues with age verification on the web. People lie about their age to access all sorts of sites, porn sites being chief among them. When we start talking about verification of medical conditions, something fiercely guarded by privacy and patient rights, we realize that this service cannot be guaranteed to be offered solely to the handicapped.

This is about money, plain and simple. Many outfitters do offer handicapped hunts, for real. Numzaan Safaris in South Africa is an example of an outfitter that accommodates wheelchair-bound hunters. See the photo gallery on WeLoveOutdoors.com for some snaps of a wheelchair bound hunter harvesting a wildebeast and red kudu as examples. Some outfitters even offer hunts for blind folks, where the guide will aim for them, and the client pulls the trigger. These are great efforts, as they get people with handicaps outdoors, experiencing hunting either for the first time, or a chance to get back in the game.

But to offer point and click "hunts" is not hunting, it is gaming, and has no real place in the woods, or anywhere else. This is what deer hunter 2000 is for. You get to shoot a buck (albeit a virtual buck, without the meat, of course) and you still get the "feeling" of hunting, but it is actually gaming, plain and simple.


----------



## bow weevil (Oct 31, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> Intentions regarding Internet Hunting (for disabled, bedridden ex-hunters) is certainly noble, but how does one actually safeguard this service to be extended only to those who have legitimate handicaps? This is not easily done. Sure, the intention may be to extend this type of service to quadrapalegics, but, without face to face verification, one cannot completely say that internet hunts are only being extended to handicapped.
> 
> Heck, we have enough issues with age verification on the web. People lie about their age to access all sorts of sites, porn sites being chief among them. When we start talking about verification of medical conditions, something fiercely guarded by privacy and patient rights, we realize that this service cannot be guaranteed to be offered solely to the handicapped.
> 
> This is about money, plain and simple. Many outfitters do offer handicapped hunts, for real. Numzaan Safaris in South Africa is an example of an outfitter that accommodates wheelchair-bound hunters. See the photo gallery on WeLoveOutdoors.com for some snaps of a wheelchair bound hunter harvesting a wildebeast and red kudu as examples. Some outfitters even offer hunts for blind folks, where the guide will aim for them, and the client pulls the trigger. These are great efforts, as they get people with handicaps outdoors, experiencing hunting either for the first time, or a chance to get back in the game.


I cant argue with that at all, a non handicapped person would be accepted just as quickly as a quad. it is about money.

I can say that if/when I am no longer physically able to go out and hunt, It might have been something I would consider. Now I am completely out of luck. If someone that wasn't handicapped paid to do it, what does it really hurt, other than cementing the fact that the person is about as worthless as they come, what harm did it do? Is there any difference between that and buying meat online? someone else does all the work either way, and both take just a few mouse clicks. 

"OUr sport involves far more than simply shooting an animal. If anyone of us doesn't recognize and understand this, I do not know what to say."

I understand this completely, hunting and fishing is almost a sacred activity for me. but the fact is this hunting was on a private ranch, more like a cattle ranch with deer rather than actual hunting. those are deer I would never have a chance for anyways. I really don't think it effects me at all unless someone I knew wasn't handicapped and paying for the "hunts". Then I would just feel pity for the man. thats it.

Ted Nugents website has some interesting articles on the subject, if you have time, they might be worth reading. if not, no big deal.


----------



## DakotaElkSlayer (Jan 13, 2004)

Some of you guys aren't serious, are you? The ban on internet hunting is almost as tragic as outlawing the jacklighting of deer.:embara: 

Jim


----------



## Andrewwilson19 (Nov 18, 2005)

I'll hit a anti in the face with a monkey wrench... It's a proven fact that your teeth are made for eating meat.... Obviously they did not take science in school... And yet they claim that they are smart... GO READ THE BIBLE...


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

Hunting? via clicking a mouse button from a distant location has been banned in the following states.

California -- Illegal for any person to hunt by means of computer-assisted remote 

Maine -- Bans remote control hunting 

Michigan -- May not use the internet to operate a firearm, bow, or crossbow to take an animal 

New York -- Prohibits the shooting or spearing of targets or animals from a remote location over the internet 

North Carolina -- Prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting 

Wisconsin -- No person may shoot at a farmraised deer unless the person is in physical possession of the weapon 

West Virginia -- Unlawful to hunt for a fee where the hunter is not physically present in the same location as the game 

Virginia -- Prohibits remote control hunting 

Vermont -- Makes it illegal to take a wild animal or captive animal using a remote-control hunting device 


The wording above as from the USSA website

*******

Comments ---

1) While it is not the official text of the legislation, I am concerned about some of the above wording as follows. While the legislation is essencially designed to prohibit the hunting of an animal where the person discharging the weapon is not physically present, it concerms me where I see it worded such as " Prohibits remote control hunting ".. The reason being is that would it affect a severely physically disabled person _in the presence of game_ , who may benefit by using certain electronic technology equal or similar to that targeted in the legislation, to discharge a weapon ? 

2) As sportsmen, we should NEVER allow anti factions like the hsus to promote successful bans of so called internet hunting as a victory against hunting. While referred to as " internet hunting ", the practice has never been accepted as hunting by the hunting public in general.

3) I hope that in states that have banned so called Internet hunting, that it will not have an adverse effect on develepment of technology where it could indeed be beneficial to operate mechanical devices via clicking a mouse button from a remote location.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

*Wording of Laws the Concern, not the Internet Hunt Ban*

I totally agree with Tim4Trout and the observation that the wording of many State-level Internet Hunting bans is more the issue than the ban itself. The wording of "Remote Control Devices" does carry an opening for interpretation, in that a mouth trigger could conceiveably be considered a "remote control device". 

DakotaElkSlayer is also right when he draws the parallel between Internet Hunts and jacklighting of deer. Kudos!

I would strongly recommend each State-Level Conservation Organizations (like NYSCC, MUCC, etc.) be made aware of these concerns from local sportsmen to assure the correct wording of these laws which ban Internet "Hunting". The last thing we need is for some creative ARA to get into power, and extend the interpretation in a direction clearly inconsistent with the intent of the bans.


----------

