Posted on 07/08/2006 12:24:20 PM PDT by nypokerface
Louisiana has joined 21 other states in banning Internet hunting, the practice of using a mouse click to kill animals on a distant game farm.
The cyber-shooting idea was the brainchild of Texan John Lockwood, who started the web site Live-Shot.com.
The idea was this: Hunters sign up on the web site and pay some $1,500 or more. They schedule a session, then log on at their appointed time to watch a feeding station on the computer screen. The animal that was ordered—from wild hogs to antelope—is in the area, and when it approaches the food, the hunter moves on-screen crosshairs into place. A click of the mouse fires a rifle to kill the animal.
The armchair hunter's trophy animal would then be mounted and shipped for display.
Texas outlawed the practice last year.
Humane Society executive vice president Michael Markarian was pleased with the decision in Louisiana.
"Responsible hunters know there's no sport in shooting an animal remotely while lying in bed and wearing camouflage pajamas," Markarian said in a statement today.
Meanwhile, the game farm's web site now says hunters must come to the farm, where they "can now offer a unique hunting opportunity for disabled and handicapped hunters, as well as others, who may need the assistance of our system while hunting."
Can any lawyers here explain to me how states can ban what is clearly interstate commerce? I can see how they could ban the killing in their state, but participating on the internet?
Mind you, I particularly like the idea of point and click hunting, I'm just questioning the legality of these laws.
Misc ping
I'm trying to figure out how to duct tape a web cam to my truck bumper, so that people can pay me to pick up the road kill that they spot, then I'll charge to mail them the tail.
This is a particularly despicable inhumane human activity. If the inventor is someday eaten by jackals, I will not shed a tear for him.
I grew up in the mid-west; where a hunter learned to track his prey, and hunting meant taking a sandwitch, some ammo and warm clothes for a long walk. Getting a deer, pheasant, duck or rabbit meant food for the table. And as a person who worked his way through college to get my engineering degree; every single one of those animals were served and eaten. My culinary skills were not what they are now; so I ate some pretty lousy meals ... but my prey was not wasted on a chunk of plywood and my ego. My prey fed me.
Now, I love Texas; but most texans do not have a clue what hunting is. First off, using a feeder in any way, shape or form is held in utter contempt by a 'real' hunter. Hunting from a truck is the second lowest form of hunting; the third is raising the animal in a reserve with 7 foot fences.
What sport is there in training an animal to go to a spot for food, then shooting it some random time it shows up for a meal? What chance does an animal have on foot, with a 250 hp all terrain vehicle chasing after it, in a confined area? Trucks don't get tired, the prey is boxed in with no means of escape. A wounded, terrified prey who knows full well that they have no chance of survival (and they do know) yet, will still try to get away.
This makes this type of 'hunter' little more than a sadist, in my book.
>>Can any lawyers here explain to me how states can ban what is clearly interstate commerce? I can see how they could ban the killing in their state, but participating on the internet?<<
The same way they are taxing the internet, unfortunately.
You know, they ought to replace the animals with humans and use remote controlled paint ball guns - that way no animal ruights issues.
Anything that will help reduce the deer overpopulation is fine with me. You people who are whining wouldn't find it so funny to have one of those big mountain rats run in front of your car.
As far as the online hunting, it was originally concieved to be used by disabled, wheel chair bound people.
It is not a very good idea, but was not meant for the healthy, able to walk, hunter to use. Of course something like this will always be abused by idiots. Good idea to shut it down.
If someone does not like an activity on private property, they can buy the property, and make their own rules. The "feel good" folks would rather have the state trample property rights, from smoking on private property to the means of pulling a trigger in this case.
The sad thing is we are loosing our freedoms to the "feel goods" and they feel too good to care.
Does that mean no more porch hunting?
Interesting concept. Why can't we have servo driven concealed guns in select places around Baghdad, Tikrit,etc along with night vision cameras. And then when a potential trouble maker is within sight, click the mouse.
The states have the right to regulate business within their State.
They can make it illegal to for people in Texas to use such a web site, and the can make it illegal for a company to run such a business.
The Federal Government can overrule that in the interest of their power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes".
The Courts have granted the Federal Government broad powers that it's doubtful that the authors of the Constitution envisioned. However, I've never seen the courts prohibit the States from legislating something just because funds might travel across State boundaries. However, they do appear to allow federal law to supersede State law on such issues.
"This makes this type of 'hunter' little more than a sadist, in my book."
As a lifelong hunter I agree with you completely.
In the eyes of non-hunters, this sadistic practice reinforces their stereotypical view of what hunting is: Killing for the fun of it.
Many non hunters believe that Bambi is just sitting in the woods waiting for you and that you just have a few beers, walk straight into the woods and shoot her.
As hunters you and I know that it's not about killing, but this whole sick business really hurts the image of hunting.
Disgusting!
This is ssssoooo wrong. There's no sport in this? Corralled animals eliminated by a mouse click? Tacky! Reminds me of that one old Star Trek episode where war between two factions was done by computer hits. Then numbers were crunched to determine fatalities followed by people going into the death chamber and vaporized. Kirk gives an impassioned speech about the impact of the act of war and it really means and not to be taken lightly nor cleanly.
I wouldn't call any one involved hunters either. Sadist is a bit farther than I would go. A guide is an entrepenuer. A game farm is just that a farm. The guy that plunks down a big chunk of change is some one who never learned to really hunt and probably doesn't have the time or land access to learn, but is interested in firearms and wants a thrill. A landowner who puts out a feeder for his own shooting probably is just looking to put meat in the freezer. I wouldn't call any of it hunting, but I have no ill feelings toward any of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.