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."
Picking lobster. Ok let's think about that for a second; these 'bugs' have very little reasoning ability, they go from the ocean into cages, from cages into ships, from ships to other cages; they get rubber bands on their claws, then thrown into boiling water. The boiling water kills them almost instantly. Considering their fate in the open ocean, their death in the boiling water is faster, cleaner and less painfull than what nature would likely have in store. Even so, their ability to know what is going on means that the trauma is likely to be less than a mammal.
In hunting, the deer, antelope, moose or other game is out in it's natural habitat. It faces threates from wolves, coyote, cougars as well as the on-going territorial fights with others of it's own kind. The animal knows it's territory, and is always on guard for threats. The animal knows and instinctually will avoid danger. This is why hunting is different than simple slaughter. The hunter uses his skills to blend into the environment, and stalks his prey. A true hunter kills what he targets; this means that if you draw blood, you're next couple of hours or days will be spent claiming your target. A hunter does not let a wounded prey wander off, while he looks for the next target. No, if you wound it; you kill it. That's why marksmanship is so important; it spares you miles of tracking, and spares the prey unnecessary pain and suffering. A clean kill is a source of pride to any hunter, a messy kill is a mark of shame. Any true hunter will tell you this.
Now, let's talk about the 'drug-store cowboy' and the 'hunter-wannabe'. The 'wannabe-hunter' shoots an animal, and unless the animal drops dead within 10 ft; he starts looking for a new target. Every year we'd find a couple of deer on our land that had been shot and crawled off to die. Wanton waste. I've kicked off more than a few 'wannabe-hunters' from our property; for this stunt they had pulled one or more years previously. God may forgive them for it, I don't.
The fact of the matter is that a true hunter relies upon the carelessness of the prey; in order to make the kill. The prey is not confined, nor prevented from escaping me. No fences, no motorized vehicles, no radios or spotters; my skill in stalking, my marksmanship against the superior senses and agility of the prey. Heaven knows how many deer I walk by on any given trip; or how many deer flee when my scent is picked up.
The range-fed animal is different. He's penned in an area; there is no escape. Furthermore, the automatic feeder has conditioned him to come to a particular spot; at a particular time to get food. The prey need not forage at all, they quickly learn that at a quartz clock sets the feeder off within seconds of some time; and that at that time an electric motor will disperse corn around the feeder. All the hunter has to do is maintain his alcohol level below the level of passing out; until the timer has gone off.
The 'hunter' need not learn stealth, marksmanship, nor even the ability to discern male from female. More than a few cannot even discern cattle from deer. Ask any rancher you come across about how many cattle are shot during deer season. This 'hunter' need not even get his hands dirty; as someone else will dress and pack his target to the processing plant.
The differences are huge. Hunting conveys a sense of honor, a sense of respect and a sense of pride. This atrocity has nothing in common with hunting; except for some depraved sense of revelry in the death of an animal. The animal is not necessarily killed quickly (how many of these hunters have any idea where a deer or moose's heart is in relation to their stance?). The prey has no where to run, there is no way for the animal to escape. That is the difference.
Now, I cannot be held accountable for what an extremist may say. However, I can; with my integrity intact, fully explain the differences between slaughtering tame animals in a petting zoo; and hunting wild animals in their habitat.
Then let's not call it 'Hunting'; because it isn't. We don't call the act of executing a murderer, homicide, do we? We don't call imprisoning a rapist, kidnapping? Words mean things.
Is a Rancher or farmer 'hunting' when he brings in beef or pork to the butcher? When we kill a chicken; it called butchering. If we are talking about butchering exotic livestalk, let's call it what it is. It isn't hunting; there's a very big difference between hunting and this activity.
"The differences are huge. Hunting conveys a sense of honor, a sense of respect and a sense of pride. This atrocity has nothing in common with hunting; except for some depraved sense of revelry in the death of an animal. The animal is not necessarily killed quickly (how many of these hunters have any idea where a deer or moose's heart is in relation to their stance?). The prey has no where to run, there is no way for the animal to escape. That is the difference."
Yes, yes, we have no argument there IS a difference. My point is not that these people are hunters, or that they are somehow honorable in playing games with real animals. I'm not saying that these people are doing any more than relishing the death of tame or baited animals. But I am saying that the folks who want all hunting ended would consider your view of unsporting and inhumane laughably blind to the fact that YOUR hunting is unsporting and inhumane (at least, in their eyes). If this sort of hunting is inhumane and unsporting, and may be banned as a result, someone with a different perspective on what constitutes inhumane and unsporting will eventually use this as precedent to take the next step.
Livestock is livestock. They are raised for slaughter.
What do you care what marketing gimmick is used? The person still buys his animal. The meat is still eaten.
bump.
I would pay to hurl paint balls at naked PETA protestors!
Where's the "Censorship!" crowd on this one?
Words mean things; thus even though the end event may be the same, the process used to get to the event discerns a lot. Consider, sexual relations between a husband and wife may result in a child; but so does rape. Cancer kills, but so does a drunk driver. You don't take a murder victim and announce that he was going to die anyway. These are very different things.
Selling a permit to hunt an animal in a petting zoo is not hunting. It should not be equated or compared to hunting on any plane; moral, ethical, legal or physical. Taking pleasure in killing an animal that is confined and helpless may be legal; but it also has some aspects of sadism attached. A skilled hunter will typically drop his prey with a single shot. How many of these animals in a setting not entirely different than a petting zoo are shot over and over; and spend hours trying to escape a fenced field, only to die from blood loss? Based upon people whom I have talked with, who have been taken on "Exotic animal safari's", more than you would like to believe.
No debate with you on that point. My point is only that the guys who "hunt" this way are easily referred to using words like wimp, loser and wannabe.
Ah, no.
The marketing is to reach a target audience. That would be the audience of hunters and the exotic animal industry.
This is merely buying an undressed animal. Exotic ranches sell for meat as well as breeding stock just like domestic livestock farmers.
I've never heard anyone use that expression other than my parents talking about one of my dad's aunts (I believe) saying it often enough that their bird picked it up and used it a lot.
Read the article and my responses.
My, my. Response No. 97 wasn't very nice at all. You responded to my No. 6 with a question that made it appear you neither read the article or gave much thought to my response. I suggested that you read both. I didn't launch on you. I referenced the inventor of this despicable practice described in the article. Clicking a mouse to kill an animal while sitting on your butt at a computer is not noble and not sport. In my other answers, I explained that I haven't eaten meat since 1991. That is right for me, but I made no condemnation of those who eat meat or who hunt.
Sorry my suggestion to read the article and my responses made you so angry.
Use tacky language on the open forum again and I will personally give you the boot. Your choice. Either knock it off or lose your posting privileges.
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.