Live animals can now be hunted on the Web

[villager]

Point, click and shoot

Live animals can now be hunted on the Web, and state lawmaker wants practice stopped

Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

Thursday, March 10, 2005


Sacramento -- On a Texas ranch, exotic sheep and antelope roam about, offering paying hunters an opportunity to bag some big game. But when the prey wanders into view, the gun can be fired by someone half a world away with the simple click of a computer mouse.

A new Web phenomenon called computer-assisted remote hunting has so outraged one California lawmaker that she has introduced legislation to ban it. With one Texas-based site up and running, lawmakers, animal activists and even gun owners want to put a stop to the practice before it becomes widespread.

"This is pay per view slaughter," said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States. "It's almost beyond what anyone could imagine." SB 1028 would prohibit any computer-based hunting sites from operating in the state. It would also technically ban Californians from engaging in the practice, although there is no practical way to enforce that provision.

"This is a bad idea on so many levels,'' said Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey, author of the bill. "The precedent is terrible, and it has nothing to do with the sport of hunting."

<snip>

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/10/MNGHOBN6LT1.DTL&type=tech

[Trillo]

1. disgusting

how do you eat an animal you just killed? Nah, this ain't huntin'.

[Lorien]

5. Trophy hunters don't kill to eat

they kill because they love to kill; it gives them a sense of dominating another living creature (small dick syndrome and all that). Bush Sr. is among those pressuring some African governments to resume trophy hunting of endangered species on their lands-including the elephant (hows that for irony)? Insecure sadists are just that; it doesn't surprise me that these sickos are now killing via computer! :puke:

[glitch]

44. Way, way past time for these perverts to go extinct:. * sr and Schwarzkopf

big proponents of the canned hunt, and I think you've diagnosed their problem quite correctly.

[MARALE]

2. That is wrong on so many levels

I can't beleive it is true.

[medeak]

3. was sent the site months ago

Office is hunting central headquarters and even my rabid employees find it disgusting.

There isn't much support for it even with gun lovers.

[Amfortas]

4. This is outrageous.....

shouldn't there be a law against this sort of thing ?

[alarimer]

24. there will be

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission will put a stop to it. The proposed regulation is that the license holder actually has to be present to hunt. Or words to that effect. It is up for public comment until April 6. the Commission will vote at their next meeting in late April. I guess this is something no one thought this might be possible.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us

[Amfortas]

28. Great !

[alarimer]

33. It should be an interesting meeting

It is open to the public by the and part of it will be broadcast over the internet. The Commission rarely goes against the recommendation of the Department in regulations. Sometimes they modify them a little bit but usually these things are hammered out through public hearings beforehand.

[Sequoia]

6. Animals today, liberals tomorrow.

This is truly horrifying.

[Selteri]

7. Daily Show already covered this too. NT

[DoNotRefill]

8. Ummm....

according to their website, there is always somebody there at the gun who decides if the safety on the gun is switched off. No guy there manning the gun = no shot fired.

Once the animal is shot, the guy on-site makes sure the animal is dead, cleans it, butchers it, and ships the edible meat to the guy on the internet and the rest to a taxidermist if wanted. Additionally, the internet person must obtain a valid Texas hunting license beforehand.

I don't see how this is any different from somebody buying a cow over the internet, has the cow shipped to a slaughterhouse, and then the meat shipped to him. At least the animals are "free range"...

[villager]

10. you have a point about the cow, but...

...even a lot of gun groups are against this, if you read the whole article. It isn't "hunting." It's just a version of internet porn. Except that venison shows up on your doorstep later.

[DoNotRefill]

12. you're right, it isn't hunting....

but then neither is a trip to the grocery store.

If the animal is eaten, I have no problem with it.

[villager]

14. maybe they should expand it then...

... and let people operate their own slaughterhouse equipment, via Webcam, so they can take even more responsibility for their food!

[DoNotRefill]

15. Why?

sounds like a good way to damage sensitive equipment to me...

[villager]

17. wait a minute, so now you're against remote control killing

...if it doesn't specifically involve a gun?

Food shows up at the door either way, remember.

[DoNotRefill]

20. Nope...

but a gun is a hell of a lot easier to operate than a slaughterhouse.

Guns are the original "point and click interface".

[DoNotRefill]

16. Did you read the bit....

about the handicapped hunter scheduled to do a hunt in April?

[villager]

18. right, it's "handicapped rights" to blast animals over the web

How could I have been so insensitive?

[DoNotRefill]

21. If a handicapped guy wants to kill his own food....

and that's the only way he can do it, where's the problem?

[villager]

37. and if we have to pave roads into wilderness areas,

so there will be unlimited access for everyone, why not?

Sorry, but outposts of "remote control guns" for people who want the "thrill" of the hunt isn't a good idea.

And if you're so gun(g)-ho for this, what's your objection to the remote control slaughterhouse?

[DoNotRefill]

42. A lot of slaughterhouses are indeed "remote control"....

and are actually controlled by computers. They have people there for some tasks that are not condusive to automation, but for example the conveyor belts used for slaughtering chickens are automated, and I don't THINK that humans are involved with the actual killing of the chickens. My understanding is that once they are hung upside down on the conveyor, they're basically dragged over a rotating blade to decapitate the chickens. The conveyors are controlled by computers, which are manned by people, so it's quite possible to do it via CCTV and remote control from anywhere in the world. WHY somebody would want to pay money to run the chicken-killer is beyond me, but it's technologically possible.

"In the last 15 years, thousands of America's small to mid-sized slaughterhouses have been displaced by a few large, high-speed operations, each with the capacity to kill more than a million animals a year."

http://www.goveg.com/feat/r-shouse.html

That certainly suggests that they are highly automated...

Ah, and BTW, why would they need to pave roads to a place where people already live and have a shooting range? Wouldn't the roads already be paved? Because that's what we're talking about here...this isn't some pristine wilderness in the deepest heart of Alaska, it's a shooting range in, IIRC, East Texas.

[alarimer]

26. but how will law enforcement verify that the shooter

actually has a hunting license, which is required of all hunters in Texas even if you are hunting exotics or pests like pigs.

[DoNotRefill]

30. Simply by checking the firm's records....

I'm sure they require a copy to be on file before they would allow a hunt to take place. Either that, or they sell the hunter the license themselves.

[alarimer]

32. I don't think that's good enough

They will make the regulations read that the licensee actually has t obe present. This is a no brainer. A simple matter of closing a loophole (that no one could have foreseen) in current regulations. TPWD has the authority to do so and the Commissioners rarely go against the recommedations of the Department. I have not yet read the public comments but most people I have spoken to are against this big-time, including ALL of the hunters I know.

[natrat]

9. it would suck if a hacker got in

[DoNotRefill]

13. there's a person there with the gun.....

and it's not hard to stop a solenoid from firing...

[MisterP]

11. History of the Rise of the Machines, 2000-2012,

section "The Development of Remote-Control Guns" (see also "Pushbutton Wars.")

[BadGimp]

19. Holy Shit

What an ungodly thing

how inhumane are people that would do this?????

human sniper shotting sites can;t be far off.

God Help Us..

[VegasWolf]

22. Watch it SQUIRM, watch it BLEED, watch it DIE slowly an prove ur

Republican credentials!!

[solinvictus]

23. This is bullshit!

I hate the idea of "ranch hunting" anyway because it's tantamount to shooting tame animals. This is disgusting and should be stopped.

[Paladin]

25. This Really Gets Down To It..........

.....just killing, pure and simple. None of that candy-assed communing with nature/concern for the welfare of wildlife/don't say "kill," say "harvest" bullshit that sport-hunting activists have been so fond of spouting for all these years.

Absolutely stomach-turning. And I say that as someone who used to hunt quite a bit. Shame on anyone who engages in this abominable behavior, and shame on anyone who tries to justify it.......

[VegasWolf]

27. An offer for Dick Cheeney right up his err alley.

[don954]

29. im shocked the tech behind it isnt outlawed

Can you imagine one of these remote controlled gun systems coupled with a .50 cal sniper rifle? Inhuman steadiness coupled with stealth, and if they find the gun, they will have a hell of a time finding the shooter. Imagine if the DC Sniper had this on a .50, stashed somewhere high, like on a radio tower. He could snipe people from miles and miles away and it would be next to impossible to figure out where it came from exactly. You would think such a system would be a national security risk.

[DoNotRefill]

31. Ah, yes...

After all, we all know how well prohibition works. We have the War on Drugs as proof.

[villager]

38. right, so let's just allow Howitzers and grenades and be done

with it. Wouldn't want to "prohibit" anything, after all...

[NickB79]

40. Um, actually those can be legally owned

You just have to fill out the proper paperwork and get approval first. Functioning machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, howitzers, even tanks theoretically, could be legally owned by private citizens. The grenades might be a problem, as they are an explosive.

[DoNotRefill]

43. they're classified as destructive devices...

and are also legal to own provided you jump through the hoops. The $200 tax per item, though, is pretty steep for a $38 grenade...

[NickB79]

34. Miles is a bit of an overstatement

A .50BMG is accurate on man-sized targets to ~1000 yds. And the massive muzzle blast would definitely give away it's position within a few shots.

[don954]

35. maxium effictive range is 2km. maxium range is 6.8km

and after years of aligning microwave antennas that are just a couple of km apart, I would bet 99% of people would overlook it at that range. Since this is mech controlled, we are talking about extra range here due to steadiness of the system.

[NickB79]

39. And what is it's maximum ACCURATE range?

It's one thing to point a gun up at the sky and lob off a few rounds into the air to see where they land. It's quite another to put them on target accurately. Look at what size targets long-range shooters use when competing in target-shooting matches; the things are several FEET across. At long range just maintaining a steady hold isn't enough to put all the bullets in one hole. You have to deal with changing wind speeds and the very construction of the bullet itself, as no two bullets are perfectly concentric. Most ultra-long range target shooters build set-ups called rail-guns: they bolt a massive rifle action to a steel stand and set it on the bench. These can weigh up to 100 lbs, about as steady as you can get. The average human's chest is ~15" across. A decent .50BMG rifle should be able to hit that reliably at 1000 yds, maybe 1200-1500. But at 1-2 miles? Only if you fire many, many rounds per target.

[Catchawave]

36. I've heard about this....

Where's the outrage from the real "sportsmen" ?

[saigon68]

41. Being One (And very Outraged over this concept)

I can't believe this is for real. It just shows how sick certain people are.

Why not just use Napalm, It kills and cooks your meal ALL at the same time.

The burning hair smell is kind of gross, but you get used to it after a while. I don't thing they have smellovision on the internet yet.

CREEPS ALL </DISGUST>