33 States Have Banned Internet Hunting

Internet hunting is a sport where someone on the internet pays an actual hunter to let them view the prey through a webcam, and then allows the client to pull the trigger with a click of the mouse. If you haven't heard of it, it's because it doesn't exist:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1186...onsub_page_one

Quote:

The Humane Society of the United States last year mailed more than 50,000 people an urgent message, underlined and in bold type: "Such horrific cruelty must stop and stop now!"

The cruelty in question was Internet hunting, which the animal-rights group described as the "sick and depraved" sport of shooting live game with a gun controlled remotely over the Web. Responding to the Humane Society's call, 33 states have outlawed Internet hunting since 2005, and a bill to ban it nationally has been introduced in Congress.

But nobody actually hunts animals over the Internet. Although the concept -- first broached publicly by a Texas entrepreneur in 2004 -- is technically feasible, it hasn't caught on. How so many states have nonetheless come to ban the practice is a testament to public alarm over Internet threats and the gilded life of legislation that nobody opposes.

With no Internet hunters to defend the sport, the Humane Society's lobbying campaign has been hugely successful -- a welcome change for an organization that has struggled to curtail actual boots-on-the-ground hunting. Michael Markarian, who has led the group's effort, calls it "one of the fastest paces of reform for any animal issue that we can remember seeing."

Vicki L. Walker, a state senator in Oregon, says she wasn't aware of Internet hunting until a representative from the society told her about it and asked her to sponsor a ban. "It offended my sensibilities," she says. The bill passed unanimously this year.

Melanie George Marshall, a Delaware state representative who sponsored an Internet-hunting ban that passed in June, considers her legislation a matter of homeland security. "I don't want to give ideas to people," she says, "but these kinds of operations would have the potential to make terrorism easier."

Even the National Rifle Association endorses the ban. "It's pretty easy to outlaw something that doesn't exist," says Rod Harder, a lobbyist for the NRA in Oregon who supported an Internet-hunting ban that took effect in June. "We were happy to do it."

John C. Astle, a Maryland state senator, angered animal-rights groups in 2004 when he successfully pushed to allow hunting black bears in the state. Safari Club International, a hunting group, named him the nation's State Legislator of the Year in 2005. But last year, working with the Humane Society, he sponsored an Internet-hunting ban that sailed through the legislature.

"If you're a dedicated hunter, you believe in the concept of fair chase," says Mr. Astle, who once shot a 13-foot crocodile in Africa's Zambezi river. Internet hunting, he says, "flies in the face of fair chase."

Still, Mr. Astle worried that the bill's wording "might extend the ban to legitimate types of hunting, as I'm sure those animal-huggers would like to do."

Internet hunting was first put forth as an idea in November 2004, when John Lockwood, an insurance estimator for an auto-body shop in San Antonio, launched live-shot.com. For $150 an hour and a monthly fee, users could peer through the lens of a Webcam and aim a .30-caliber rifle at animals on a hunting farm in central Texas. Mr. Lockwood said he wanted to help the disabled experience the thrill of hunting.

Pulling the trigger was a matter of clicking the mouse -- rather, it would have been, had a public outcry and concern from state regulators not forced Mr. Lockwood to abandon his plans. At the time, just one person, a friend of Mr. Lockwood's, had tested the service. He killed a wild hog.

"I thought that would be the end of it," recalls Mr. Lockwood, whose site now features ads for hunting gear, cars and life insurance.

Hardly. The Humane Society, calling Internet hunting a "sickening reality," urged state legislatures to outlaw the practice. Virginia became the first to do so in 2005, and others followed in quick succession. California also banned Internet fishing. Nobody is doing that, either. An Illinois bill outlawing Internet hunting is awaiting the governor's signature. That will bring the total to 34 states. In three of them, regulators imposed the bans.

Ms. Marshall, the Delaware state representative, realizes that nobody is actually killing animals on the Internet, but thinks now is the time to act. "What if someone started one of these sites in the six months that we're not in session?" says Ms. Marshall. "We were able to proactively legislate for society."

That sentiment bothers a fellow representative, Gerald W. Hocker. Of 3,563 state legislators nationwide who have voted on Internet-hunting bans, Mr. Hocker is one of only 38 to oppose them. He co-sponsored an earlier version of Rep. Marshall's bill in 2005 but took his name off it after doing some research.

"Internet hunting would be wrong," he says. "But there's a lot that would be wrong, if it were happening."

Nevertheless, the Humane Society depicts Internet hunting as an imminent threat. "Sick ideas have a habit of spreading," the group told members last year in a letter requesting donations "to fight this madness."

Mr. Markarian, president of the Humane Society's lobbying arm, concedes that Internet hunting is "certainly not the biggest problem currently facing animals." But, he adds, "It wouldn't take much for someone to start an Internet-hunting site offshore or in one of the states that hasn't banned it."

Mr. Markarian also argues that the society's focus on a potential threat has drawn attention to a current one: canned hunting, in which quarries are confined to a piece of land and are an easy kill. In Alabama last year, legislators shot two birds with one stone, banning Internet hunting and many types of canned hunting in the same bill.

Mr. Lockwood, meanwhile, says he's incredulous that his abortive scheme, an idea that came to him one afternoon while surfing the Web, has spawned such a legislative backlash.

"They didn't have to make a federal case out of it," he says.

Internet hunting is now, in fact, a federal matter. On June 14, two congressmen introduced H.R. 2711, the Computer-Assisted Remote Hunting Act. Although it had no apparent opposition, a similar bill died in committee last year, and it's not clear whether this one has a better chance at passage.

Republican Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, one sponsor, says he first heard of Internet hunting from the Humane Society, which asked him to introduce a ban. "You just wonder," he says, "who would do something like this?"

I think the greater danger lies in proactively banning behavior that violates present mores before that behavior actually presents real problems.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

"these kinds of operations would have the potential to make terrorism easier."

It's true, soon Google will equip their Google Earth satellites with lasers so that you'll be able to shoot whatever you're looking at.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

"It's pretty easy to outlaw something that doesn't exist," says Rod Harder, a lobbyist for the NRA in Oregon who supported an Internet-hunting ban that took effect in June.

I think we should've preemptively banned lobbyist porn first.

I can sort of see where the Humane Society is coming from with this. They spend all their time trying to fight types of hunting that already exist and they obviously run into a lot of opposition from the people who are doing it. An easy win before internet hunting has a chance to gain popularity must look pretty appealing.

The legislators aka Future Police just don't want the terrorists to take all the good game.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

"Proactive legislation" is one of the scarier things I've ever read. It's also pretty disgusting, though, that the Humane Society is marketing for donations on the basis that abuses might happen.

Hey guys, flaying infants to make soft leather pillows is a terrible terrible thing. Please send me money so we can prevent this travesty from ever happening.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I read the title of this thread, and the first thing I thought of was hunting for internets. I don't know where you'd go to find wild internets, though. It seems like banning something that nobody in their right mind would ever do is a big ol' waste of public money. If it ends up being the case that the law is worded broadly enough to ban other things too, that would be no surprise at all.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

it's because it doesn't exist:

Except it has. Hell, the article said it just didn't catch on.

I guess you were too busy bolding all the quotes that makes, what, the NRA look good? to notice that you are wrong.

And shocking that the Humane Society would push for ::GASP:: humane legislation!

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I think the greater danger lies in proactively banning behavior that violates present mores before that behavior actually presents real problems.

loooooooooool

Let's not ban murder until someone murders somone.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Basically, live-action Oregon Trail?

Do I still have to leave the meat if I shoot too much?

FELIPE NO

I don't see why internet hunting shouldn't be illegal.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

The only problem I have with this, is that you aren't on the site to chase after the animal if you don't kill it in one hit, and I doubt whoever owns the internet hunting business is going to go chasing after it if it runs off. I don't have a problem with hunting online persay as I do complications arising from it. Plus - what about some human dumb enough to walk across the shooting range? Some psychotic freak might be on and willing to shoot them. Granted, they probably deserve to be shot, but still.

I'm a full supporter of LESS gun control, but that doesn't mean I want to throw gun SAFETY to the wind. And shooting a gun over the internet doesn't strike me as safe.

Of course, then again, the fact that some people I know are allowed to own and shoot guns does scare me...

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by a lurker

I don't see why internet hunting shouldn't be illegal.

Because it hasn't happened very often!

don't you see

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

Except it has. Hell, the article said it just didn't catch on.

The sport never existed. The service was tested by one guy who didn't even pay for it.

Quote:

I guess you were too busy bolding all the quotes that makes, what, the NRA look good? to notice that you are wrong.

I thought it made the NRA look crazy. Also what the fuck is your problem?

Quote:

And shocking that the Humane Society would push for ::GASP:: humane legislation!

It's not so much shocking that they would try to lobby humane legislation as they did lie about it and waste time in legislatures.

Quote:

Let's not ban murder until someone murders somone.

STEP OFF NIGGA

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I can't be doin that all the time, goddamn woman.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The sport never existed. The service was tested by one guy who didn't even pay for it.

It's not so much shocking that they would try to lobby humane legislation as they did lie about it and waste time in legislatures.

Oh I see! So because someone didn't pay for it, that certainly makes it OK.

They aren't banning people paying for it, they are banning the act of it.

You're the only one I see accusing the HSUS of lying here. Not even sure what about.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Also what the fuck is your problem?

You and your trolling. Pretty much everyone is sick of this political bullshit you bring to GFF every single day.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Jesus Christ, you talk like they're hunting people.

Quote:

You're the only one I see accusing the HSUS of lying here. Not even sure what about.

Quote:

The Humane Society, calling Internet hunting a "sickening reality,"

That would be what I'm referring to.

Quote:

You and your trolling. Pretty much everyone is sick of this political bullshit you bring to GFF every single day.

Trolling? Kiss my ass.

Most amazing jew boots

So you're saying that an Internet hunt never happened?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

What's to stop them?

I very much doubt someone is going to go through the trouble of e-murdering a person through a webcam with a robotic firearm when they could probably empty a revolver and wipe it off with no one the wiser.

Most murderers aren't Bond villains.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I think the greater danger lies in proactively banning behavior that violates present mores before that behavior actually presents real problems.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I don't know why you're so for internet hunting, Brady. It sounds like it's dangerous. I don't know why you are against illegalizing dangerous things.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

All this "intranet hunting" has made me want to kill something by clicking on it...


... am I a sickening reality, now?

Originally Posted by a lurker

I don't know why you're so for internet hunting, Brady. It sounds like it's dangerous. I don't know why you are against illegalizing dangerous things.

I think the problem he seems to have is that it hasn't actually happened. It's not about banning dangerous things (although we'd run out of stuff to do if we where to do so), but about banning things that don't even exist. It's a waste of time and money that could be used to fight against things that currently are real problems.

I say, unban internet hunting, practice it, then fight to end it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Well, we don't really need to shoot ourselves in the foot or put our hand in a frying pan to realize that its dangerous. We don't really need to experience something in order to determine whether or not it is harmful.

I have no problem with something being banned if it impugns upon my life expectancy. Most other personal freedoms are off limits, but this is one 'bannination' that I happen to agree with. (for hopefully obvious reasons)

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by MeTaL_oRgY

I think the problem he seems to have is that it hasn't actually happened.

It has, it just didn't really catch on.

Quote:

It's not about banning dangerous things (although we'd run out of stuff to do if we where to do so), but about banning things that don't even exist. It's a waste of time and money that could be used to fight against things that currently are real problems.

No, it's more banning things that are within the realm of possibility due to current technology. You know, the law evolving to match the world? Becides, it doesn't really cost much effort or money to make a law like this. It's not like this law was made as opposed to a law that would legalize stem-cell research.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

You very much doubting something doesn't mean it can't happen.

There IS a reason why curling irons have the warning "Do not insert into orrifice"

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Is it because they pinch?

Also, Mikey, I have to say that I really don't mind Brady's "political bullshit." I don't agree with it too often, but it's a refreshing read and he obviously cares about it. Ain't no harm in letting him have his pedestal.

Most amazing jew boots

tl;dr isn't refreshing to read in my eyes but to each his own.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Except when he threatens to ban people from getting near his pedestal because he doesn't want to deal with strong opposing arguments.

I've got no problem with opposing arguments, but I do have a problem with somebody spamming pictures of gold standard as if it was an actual point. Don't ack like u don't know.

I've got no problem with you and Mikey, for instance (except I think Mikey is kindof a jerk but I luv 'im )

Quote:

What's to stop them?

Well, nothing if you really think about it. Banning internet hunting hasn't made it any harder for somebody to start hunting people through the internet. Mechanically, I mean. Even then it's not like murder isn't illegal.

So how many records have you downloaded this month, Dev?

Quote:

So you're saying that an Internet hunt never happened?

No, I said it doesn't exist as a sport, and therefore doesn't present a real problem.

Are we next going to put forward bills concerning cyborg behavior?

What I'm really trying to allude to with this, and nobody make this an issue, concerns items like gay marriage. States and the Feds have proactively attempted to ban the practice before it's even recognized because the idea of it violates social mores. Internet hunting was banned for the same reason, only it was done so with a lack of any debate.

Without internet hunting actually happening, there's no way to determine whether or not it actually presents a problem worth legislating. The debate ultimately lies in how much you think of animal rights, but the problem is that there was no debate, period.

My point isn't that internet hunting shouldn't be banned, but that it's being banned for all the wrong reasons.

Reasons like:

Quote:

"these kinds of operations would have the potential to make terrorism easier."

How ya doing, buddy?