Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Hunting Banned in California

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the crisis-of-the-nanosecond dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 984

TheSync writes "California has banned Internet hunting. Emergency regulations will be put in place by the California Fish and Game Commission, and legislation (SB 1028) is in the works. West Virginia is considering legislation against it as well. Hunters consider hunting by robot and mouse click 'a digrace to the sport,' whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine."

cancel ×

984 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You're violating my rights! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471321)

It's my God given right as an American to be able to sit at home in my underwear and kill shit.

Re:You're violating my rights! (1)

Androk (873765) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471378)

other than shooting at flies while looking at pr0n :)

Androk

Can't control offshore shooting (3, Interesting)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471469)

How can they control offshore shhoting? Breed rabits etc in some shit-hole and charge your credit card.

Of course most likely you'd not be really killing real animals, any more than you're talking to an innocent teen when you dial 0900-VIRGIINS. Instead you'd pay your $50 or whatever and the whole shooting would be mocked up, probably from Discovery channel footage. That way a few thousand cyberhunters get to "shoot" the same bambi and nobody really gets hurt except a few credit cards.

Re:Can't control offshore shooting (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471522)

Instead you'd pay your $50 or whatever and the whole shooting would be mocked up, probably from Discovery channel footage.
I bet that Christmas lights guy is behind this...

Re:You're violating my rights! (4, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471502)

whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine."

Wow, that wasn't inflammatory.

ya (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471326)

ya

PETA approved (2, Interesting)

jpu8086 (682572) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471328)

PETA [peta.org] likes this legislature. They pulled for it. They proclaim victory on their front page.

Fuck PETA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471355)

Bunch of communist scumbags.

Re:PETA approved (4, Funny)

shuz (706678) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471372)

*sigh* PETA is just too extreme. And red meat is just too tasty.

-It' ok to eat fish because fish don't have any feelings. -KC

Re:PETA approved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471444)

Well there are a bunch of nutters on both sides, so PETA just evens it out. I mean, this whole Internet hunting thing is almost to ridiculous to believe.

Re:PETA approved (1)

DecayCell (778710) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471536)

The definition of "extreme" is in the eye of the beholder.
I support them, even though I consider their campaign to change Hamburg's name quite silly.

Also, you'd be surprised to find out how easy it is to stop eating meat.

Re:PETA approved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471381)

I think everyday joe is for the legislation. if you want internet hunting play deer hunter 39.

Re:PETA approved (5, Funny)

ashmedai (869288) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471389)

Does this mean no more playing punch the monkey?

Re:PETA approved (1, Funny)

anagama (611277) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471462)


I always wanted to have a leather jacket painted on the back. A big roast turkey with P E T A on the top arc. At the bottom it would read "People for the Epicurian Treatment of Animals".

I'm a member (1, Redundant)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471494)

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

Meat, ummmmm. Yummy. One of the best "roasts" I ever had was elk but my brother-in-law didn't "shoot" it by clicking a mouse. Ditto for some deer jerky one of the folks I used to work with brought in.

Sportsmanship (1)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471332)

I guess it's like playing FPS games, using aimbots is just not fair.

Hunting on foot much safer (1)

shuz (706678) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471335)

The main reason everyone is so upset/scared over internet hunting are the safety concerns.

Also hunting on foot is a lot more noble and is a tradition that has been carried out for thousands of years.

Re:Hunting on foot much safer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471424)

If what you say is true, then wouldn't launching cruise missiles at a nation from the safety of a warship also be considered non-noble? would soward fighting be considered the noblest of all combat weapons? If so then isn't a spear and a rock the noblest of all?

i say we need to arm the animals with turrents connected to the internet through wifi. you could then hunt the hunter at the comfort of your own home, and give the hunter a more noble target.

Re:Hunting on foot much safer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471437)

hunting with a bow and arrow, stick, rock, knife, spear, or your own bare hands has been carried out for thousands of years. i'd consider that a bit nobile. not what you guys do.

Re:Hunting on foot much safer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471503)

Ok, here is the diagram:

Lawyers -> Guns -> Compound Bow -> Bow -> Spear -> Knife -> Rock -> Stick -> Bare Hands
Least Noble Most Noble

Re:Hunting on foot much safer (1)

Frodrick (666941) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471505)

The main reason everyone is so upset/scared over internet hunting are the safety concerns.

I totally agree. A live human who stumbled into the "kill zone" would have a life expectancy of about 30 seconds. The seeming anonymity of the net along with the similarity to various person shoot-em-up video games would ensure that.

Re:Hunting on foot much safer (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471517)


"Also hunting on foot is a lot more noble and is a tradition that has been carried out for thousands of years."

Ah yes, you can even see cave paintings of hunters mounting their trusty steeds [atving.com] to motor off into the untouched wilderness.

Priorities (1)

bintrue (613842) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471336)

Of all the things wrong with this wonderful state of mine. I'm proud to see the Government spending time outlawing this... err where do the sarcasm tags go?

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471405)

It's not like the whole government is working night and day on this. Sheesh.

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471534)

"where do the sarcasm tags go"

One goes just north of the Oregon border and the other goes just south of the Mexican border I believe?

Re:Priorities -- what can you say for it? (5, Insightful)

Morvandium (534213) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471543)

How many of you criticising this legislation are actually hunters? As someone who is both a techie and an avid outdoorsman, I don't see any problem with this legislation. High powered rifles do not ensure a perfect hunt. I personally am against confined game farms where a hunters prey is pretty much domesticated, and I have a problem with doing it over a computer. Hunting can and should still be a challenge. I don't see something like internet hunting promoting, for example, an intimate parent/child bond as there's hours or days spent away from other distractions. I mean, seriously, if you're out hunting, you're off in the woods or the field, and there isn't an instant messenger or e-mail to pop up -- hell, damned cell phones are enough of a problem in the outdoors. It comes down to that Jurrasic Park conundrum: just because you can doesn't mean you should. Hunting over the internet is not a right. I can understand the advantage for disabled individuals, but then again, I hunt with people who are "handicapped" under my state's laws, and you know what -- there are already special accomadations for them, such as allowing the use of ATVs while hunting, or allowing the use of crossbows. And yes, fat, lazy Americans should get up off their asses to actually go hunt, if that's what they want to do. Sorry to say it, but every group of Americans could use some Darwinistic thinning -- if you want to go hunt, you should have to figure out how to use a gun, walk through the wilds, etc. Those who can't figure this out, and, say, accidentally shoot themselves, or die in the wilderness... well, go population control. And, I can see where PETA would call this a triumph on their part. I find it kind of odd to agree with PETA on something, because I'm usually against what they have to say. I mean, think about it this way ... what real arguments can anyone make for allowing this? What convincing situations and reasonings can someone present?

Damnit! (4, Funny)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471337)

I had just wrote up an shell script to do all my hunting for me, and now this!

Wait... Logic Check... (1, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471338)

So hunting over the internet is "unsporting" but killing animals with high power, long range rifles isn't?

I am not supporting internet hunting but come on guys, can you REALLY call any modern day hunting a "real hunt", there is NO challenge.

Re:Wait... Logic Check... (5, Funny)

daft_one (532587) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471436)

My bow and I would like you to come within 100 yards and say that ;-)

Re:Wait... Logic Check... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471439)

I don't know about you, but I'm a country-dwelling geek. If you live in the city, shut your mouth, you don't know how we live our lives. Not to be harsh, but hunting = food, and no one got rich farming. If I can give my family a nutritious meal for the $.3 it costs for a shotgun slug, then thats money that I can put towards paying off the morage, instead of buying GMO food at the grocery store.
Now you seem to be saying that the only reason to hunt is for the challenge, which shows that you really don't Get It. Is it morally wrong for a bear to break open a hive of bees? After all, there's no "challenge" for the bear. Hunting isn't about a challenge, it's about getting food.
This obviously doesn't apply to the smug-ass city dwelling fuckers who hire 20 people to track a goat across the Rockies before picking up a sniper rifle to "kill" the poor animal.

Re:Wait... Logic Check... (5, Funny)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471540)

I think the orginal poster is talking about tearing the heart from a 9 foot tall bear with your bare hands then holding it over your head on top of a hill shouting in sheer barbaric primal release.

In keeping with my roots, I do a similar thing when I buy a plastic and styrofoam refridgerated package of boneless, skinless chicken breast for $1.99/lb.

Re:Wait... Logic Check... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471443)

Clearly you havent ever set forth into the wilderness with a rifle. To proclaim something as challenging as hunting CAN BE only illustrates your utter lack of experience.

Where I hunt, I can go days without seeing an animal. At times, I have to crawl on my belly for great distances to hope to get a clear line of sight to the deer. It requires constant attention and vigilance, not to mention the physical harshness of being in freezing cold and blowing snow at times.

You probably imagine hunting as some fat, nascar-fan, overweight, blue-collar uneducated white guys sitting around in their trucks shooting grazing animals across a 200-yard field. Sorry, thats not my definition.

Re:Wait... Logic Check... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471538)

At times, I have to crawl on my belly for great distances to hope to get a clear line of sight to the deer. It requires constant attention and vigilance, not to mention the physical harshness of being in freezing cold and blowing snow at times.

You mean, like the deer needs to have too. OK, so far you're even. Let's say you're finally there then. What happens then? Pull the trigger and a successful hunt? That's when you stop being even in the "hunt" to me. You're doing it on the same level as the deer until the critical moment.

Re:Wait... Logic Check... (5, Insightful)

sellin'papes (875203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471461)

I think the big difference is that when you are hunting you actually have TO GO to the animals environment and kill it. You have to crap in the bushes.

so you're crapping in the bushes and a deer comes along and you shoot it with your high powered rifle, easy right? But on some level you now understand what its like to crap in the bushes like a deer. And for understanding this, the killing process becomes very real.

over the internet it is no longer hunting. Its a video game where things actually die, there is no connect.

Re:Wait... Logic Check... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471466)

Uhm... What about the not-insignifigant amount of hunters using muzzle-loaders & bows? Is there still no challenge in that? Have you ever even gone hunting?

Re:Wait... Logic Check... (1, Informative)

black mariah (654971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471472)

Bullshit. You have to remember we're talking about hunters, not fucking snipers. Hunters don't sit in one place a half a mile from where deer/moose/whatever congregate and pick them off. Those 'high powered and long range' rifles are typically used at less than 100 yards, simply to ensure the absolute minimum chance of missing. It would be trivial to set up a blind in a treetop and take pot shots at a group of deer a half a mile away but hunters don't do that shit because it's unsporting and, more importantly, it's too much of a pain in the ass to drag a deer that far.

BTW, I'm not a hunter.

Re:Wait... Logic Check... (1)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471499)

This isn't about it being "unsporting" This is about it being dangerous.

Let's imagine this scenario:

Some punk kid steals a wallet, and signs up for some online recreation in an Internet cafe. They decide to engage in online hunting.

Now, another punk kid runs through the filed where the gun is set up, slips and falls on some deer guts.

The punk in the Internet Cafe thinks it'd be funny to pull the trigger while aimed at the kid.

Or how about the fact that this means unlicensed hunters are essentially operating firearms in your state using buggy video over IP. If you've ever worked with these systems you'll know how crappy they are.

Internet hunting just isn't safe.

Re:Wait... Logic Check... (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471523)

You've never gone hunting.

If/when you do ... you'll go home empty handed and think differently about the challange.

Re:Wait... Logic Check... (1)

MrPerfekt (414248) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471541)

Oh please. You mean to tell me hunting with a muzzle loader (that oh-so-modern weapon) is not a challenge?

Try it sometime. For one, you only have one shot. Also, deer have some pretty damn good hearing. One tiny, twig breaking or click your saftey off too fast and you will not get an opportunity to even try to shoot.

Crossbow is even harder.

Most sportsman I know don't use some huge freaking sniper rifle with 100x scope which you envisioned to kill deer.

By the way, I am not a hunter but several of my friends do hunt when it's in season.

Personally, I think "Internet hunting" is a ridiculous concept because of the fact that you're not tracking anything which is really what HUNTING is... locating and tracking a target on large plain. Blowing the shit out of animals that are "stocked" (placed in front of remote control guns) with extremely small boundaries is NOT hunting in the first place. It's remote target practice with live animals that have -no- chance. THAT is what the problem is. "Internet hunting" is truly a misnomer.

Snide remark (3, Insightful)

mondoterrifico (317567) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471340)

I highly doubt the submitter's genes would be alive today, if not for the hunting of "innocent" animals, whatever the hell that means.

Re:Snide remark (1)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471458)

Word. I can understand being against hunting for sport, but hunting for food, resources, etc.... what's wrong with that?

Re:Snide remark (1)

Bamafan77 (565893) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471474)

"I highly doubt the submitter's genes would be alive today, if not for the hunting of "innocent" animals, whatever the hell that means."

Good point. Sometimes it's easy to forget that evolution made us ominivores. Sure the animals didn't do anything to directly hurt us, but they also just happen to contain nutrients that are necessary for us to live. Of course technology advances in agriculture have overcome much of this, but that still doesn't change how we fit into nature in the absence of technology. It's natural for us to eat "innocent" animals.

Also after reading "Fast Food Nation", I'd almost argue that hunting your own food over the internet is certainly healthier/safer than buying the stuff churned from the nation's largest slaughterhouses. In some ways, nothing has changed since Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle".

This position assumes the animal can be humanely killed of course. The biggest problem I'd have with Internet hunting is the possibility of maiming the animals without killing or having them die in a tortuous, drawn-out manner because a shot wasn't made properly.

Re:Snide remark (1)

damsa (840364) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471476)

hunting of animals used to consist of trying them first of crimes. Nowadays, animals have no due process rights. Its shoot first and ask questions later.

Re:Snide remark (1)

fliptout (9217) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471483)

True, however times have changed Back then, it was survival.

These days, hunters used timed feeders to bait the game, turrets to give hide and have sight of the prey, high powered rifles... Simply not the same.

Last year, I built a deer feeder timer for a client. Baiting deer is legal in the state of Texas... I don't feel sorry for the game, but I guess I am not the intended audience for the sport. I get more of a thrill out of shooting people and being shot at in paintball.

Re:Snide remark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471510)

Well, if they're not innocent, what are the guilty of? Tasting better than grass?

And yeah, hunting is very much needed for survival, sure. I mean, it's not like we could domesticate wild creatures then sell their tasty parts in large places of commerce. Hmm... I know, I'll call them "supermarkets". I'll be rich!

1. Invent Domestication
2. Kill Animals Dead
3. Invent "Super Market"
4. Sell Tasty Animal Parts
5. Profit!!!

My rights online (5, Funny)

AthenianGadfly (798721) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471341)

I agree, this is integral "Your Rights Online." I protest this grave infringement against my inherent right as a human to operate a deadly weapon using some Flash game on my desktop.

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471347)

Fisrt Post, and yes I've seen "Gay niggers from outter space."

One-Click Hunting (2, Funny)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471348)

What's wrong with One-Click Hunting? Did Amazon patent this or something? I think it's a good idea. Your dinner comes walking by... click, and it's ready for pickup. This is significantly better than having to duck behind some bushes, trying to be all quiet, and then shooting your dinner. What if a fellow hunter is on the other side and you get shot? This way, nobody has to be present when bullets get fired... nobody, that is, except your dinner. :-)

what are we going to? (1)

dotpavan (829804) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471349)

"We don't think Californians should be able to hunt sitting at their computers at home,"

Oh yeah, we dont want to increase the number of fat Americans.. let them move their ass.. or someone might write a program to do that clicking thing.. and then hunting would melt down to.. "those were the days when there were guns.. now we have.. freeze or I might click!"

Fighting back (2, Funny)

rkww (675767) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471351)

Obviously the problem is the poor critters have no way to fight back - now, if we could electrify a few keyboards ....

oh, the frags (2, Funny)

Valcoramizer (812232) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471353)

dang, I was up to 60

Wow (4, Insightful)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471356)

Way to make an unbiased and factual news post, Timothy!

Yeah yeah "but timothy didn't say it thesync did" ever heard of being an editor? Ever heard of a respectable news site?

The funny part is that the first quote *is* a quote (minus the blatant spelling error, of course - congratulations again!) while the second part is complete and total fabrication.

You know what? Stuff like this doesn't help *anyone*. If you need to put words in people's mouths to make your point, your point has failed.

Re:Wow (0, Troll)

Teh_monkeyCode (752769) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471386)

> Way to make an unbiased and factual news post, Timothy!

You must be new here.

Desensitisation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471359)

This actually makes sense as making hunting as easy
as sitting at your computer and clicking away
desensitises one to the actual action of killing
a living creature. Desensitisation of this sort is _never_ a good thing.

Back under your bridge (3, Insightful)

jaymzter (452402) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471361)

whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine.
Nice troll. I still continue to be amazed such nonsense makes it into the article summaries. Animals are not "innocent", and in many cases hunting acts as part of the ecosystem, preventing animal overpopulation. It you're going to troll Timothy, try to at least sound intelligent.

Re:Back under your bridge (1)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471435)

Hear hear!

Deer don't inhabit the Midwest, they infest it.

Humans have pushed out all of the deer's predators, leaving only us and our cars. If we don't hunt them, the ones who would otherwise be taken down by a wold or coyote would starve to death.

As a side note, I don't hunt and admit I'd probably get sick and throw up if I tried, but I have nothing against those who do as long as they're licensed and follow safety practices.

I'm glad this is banned. The last thing I need is some jackass 1,000 miles away operating a firearm near my parents' house.

Re:Back under your bridge (3, Insightful)

kaalamaadan (639250) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471464)

The midwest is more infested with humans than with deer.

Where can I apply for a human hunting license?

spears only! (2, Insightful)

dukerobinson (624739) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471365)

Why is a firearm not a disgrace to the sport? Shouldn't one use a spear? And no atlatls either!

Trolling! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471380)

The entire article summary is a troll. Dumbass Timothy!

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471383)

Yay! Another fine way to limit the handicapped!

Way to go!

Silly question, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471385)

is it the internet bit that's banned in California, or the hunting bit on the other end?

If it's the internet bit, I suggest VNC'ing into a friends computer in the next state. I do however think it's nuts that you can order food over the net and have it delivered to your door, but you can't kill it over the net. That's just plain daft, and I don't even hunt.

Innocent? I think not. (0, Flamebait)

Morky (577776) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471391)

An "innocent" deer killed my friend's grandfather. They are a menace and must be stopped.

Re:Innocent? I think not. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471429)

not to mention the damage reindeer fo to grandma every year..

damned jolly old elves.

Tracking and Killing Innocent Animals? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471396)

WTF. They're food. Mind your own damn business. There's no law requiring you to hunt them, so what're you even complaining about?

One state has 1.5 million deer. You have to kill half of those every year or the population will increase. If it increases enough, people won't be able to keep them out of their gardens and disease will spread, tossing the wildlife into a dangerous spot. What the fuck do you propose? Are you honestly suggesting that people stop hunting them? Are you suggesting that taxpayer money be used to kill 750,000 deer per year, then just throw away the meat because ``meat is murder''? You'd probably ban guns, too, so that the only recourse is to poison the animals, which is imprecise and ultimately far more damaging. When all the Earth is soaked in Roundup and animal poison, what do you think you're going to eat?

In short, you are a moron. You don't know enough about the situation to speak intelligently about it, and the ``situation'' here is nature and the food supply. I suggest shutting the hell up unless you want to risk undermining your credibility on every subject.

Slashdot Conspiracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471397)

"Hunters consider hunting by robot and mouse click 'a digrace to the sport,' whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine."

This comment proves the vast left wing slashdot conspiracy. The truth: we don't oppose the killing as long as it is on our terms. It ain't that hard to understand is it? Let me help you "sciency" guys out a little:

Abortion=BAD
Death Penalty=GOOD

See???

Ban Internet hunting! (1)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471400)


(set humor=1)


Ban internet hunting! We must all do our part to preserve the endangered internets!


(set humor=0)

Hicks (2, Funny)

br4inst0rm (875155) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471402)

Damn those inbred internet hicks [aol.com] ... Damn them to hell [microsoft.com] .

Well there goes my next startup... (1)

YodaToo (776221) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471404)

There is a cattle ranch behind my house and I was thinking of arming my ER1 with a 12-gauge.

Floridian Spammers (2, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471409)

Why not tie the system into a selection of security cameras in Florida shopping malls and make it law there that anyone wishing to partake in mass emailing has to wear a bright coloured jacket with a target printed on the back in public - then we could solve two problems in one go!?

Maybe I get your spam, maybe I don't - maybe you die, maybe you don't; it seems like a fair trade-off.

At least they have a chance... (1)

irrision (536964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471415)

At least they have a sporting chance with robots. After all if they're running windows if they don't get the BSoD first it'll be infested with so much spyware that they won't even be able to see their target through the hail of pop-ups.

Thank god in America we can have human hunting robots for the military but god forbid we shoot something that would strip fields down to the soil with anything other than our nightscope equiped, low yield, laser-guided "hunting rifles".

Rumour has it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471416)

that this is what the Safari browser was originally developed for.

Why does there need to be a law for everything? (4, Insightful)

linguae (763922) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471421)

Why does there need to be a law for everything? How can the banning of Internet hunting be regulated, anyhow? What is the state going to do; get ISPs to look at the logs of everybody who are signed up at Internet hunting sites? Doesn't California have better and more important things to focus on, such as balancing the budget?

Re:Why does there need to be a law for everything? (3, Insightful)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471535)

NO, they're just going to shut down anyone who tries to operate an Internet hunting operation in California.

You see, they don't want unlicensed people using firearms in the state of California, especially when said persons aren't even IN the state but are using Video over IP and a computer to aim and fire a real gun.

Internet hunting is, form a safety perspective, a very dumb and dangerous idea.

Hunting is NECESSARY (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471431)

Tracking and killing innocent animals is NECESSARY idiot.

Go to eastern Iowa or other parts of the united states (and probably worldwide with other species) and look at the some of the whitetail deer there. Because of taking over more and more land, cutting down more and more trees the population is dying of starvation and disease. Thinning the population is the HUMANE thing to do.

Re:Hunting is NECESSARY (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471507)

I guess it's a good thing that Califorians passed the law for California, than a law passed by a midwest state.

Re:Hunting is NECESSARY (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471525)

I'm not anti-hunting.. don't participate, don't mind if others do it.. (for what it's worth, I've eaten plenty of game that neighbors or friends have had at hand)

I agree, that if the trees get cutdown, the population pressures can readily demand a reduction of the herd..

the real question is, do all the trees gotta be cut down?

(seen bush's desire to give states the decision of allowing roads in national parks? do you know how many trees a logging company can get if montana allows 1 road per 10 sq miles of park? me neither, but I know the loggers are slobbering at the thought of their ability to take old growth trees from the park being in the hands of their governor, instead of the national parks dept.)

Slantdot (1)

Racine (42787) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471432)

"whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine"

Come on, tell us your true feelings...

About time... (3, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471446)

It's about time that they outlawed Deer Hunter [atari.com] . That game ruined my life! Now I'll have time to watch "The Dukes Of Hazard" DVDs.

BAD PEOPLE - Take Life Force Remotely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471447)

Why do people still use the life force of other
creatures for survival!

Enlightend Products is proud to offer you:

The photonic powered hydrocarbon constructor.

Buy one today - and live guilt free.

Non life harmful electron credit transfers
accepted only.

Haha, "sport" hahaha (2, Insightful)

wtom (619054) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471448)

Yeah, sure it is a sport... Now, being a meat eater, I have no moral objections to hunting... But calling it a sport is silly. You kill an 8 point buck with a bowie knife and nothing else, I will call you a sportsman. You use a high powered rifle or a composite bow? That's hunting... Sport... heh...

Re:Haha, "sport" hahaha (0)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471467)

Why stop there? Why not play golf without a golf club? Pool without a stick? Hurdling without the hurdles?

Re:Haha, "sport" hahaha (0)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471481)

Let's only call it the sport of computing if you are using an 8086. Using an Athlon or Pentium 4 is just too easy.

A real FPS! (0, Troll)

Palal (836081) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471456)

Finally someone has come up with a real FPS! Next, an FPS on the streets of New York City with a remote-controlled robot! NICE!!!!! ====== Second ammendment does not belong in the constitution. ======

Mixed feelings (1)

realmolo (574068) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471484)

Well, deer are giant rats with antlers. There are too many of them, and their population needs to be controlled. I have no problem with shooting deer. Even if the meat is just going to be thrown out. I'm generally against hunting, but deer are a problem.

HOWEVER, rounding up deer and putting them in a pen so people can kill them remotely is just...weird and stupid. So I have to say I'm against it. Should it be illegal? Probably not.

Ironic really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471487)

That this bill was passed in a state run by someone who can act about as well as a webcam taped to a gun...

More teddy bears and padding for our cells (1)

ishmalius (153450) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471489)

I think that hunting by remote control is ridiculous and reflects poor character. Yet what I dislike even more is the attempt by the whiners in our culture to make the world all pink and fluffy, safe and non-threatening. This is the type of weepy hand-wringing that is willing to forbid any type of behaviour for the feeling of comfort and security. The bandana-wearing Madame Dufarge refugees from the 70's have wrought a little bit more of their damage upon the country.

It should be banned! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471490)

Internets are an endangered species. If we carry on hunting them, they'll become extinct!

Sad really (1)

Quirk (36086) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471491)

I was raised hunting and fishing. Coming from pioneer stock on both sides I was taught to hunt from a very early age and had alot of lore, and, firearms handed down to me. Killing for food is different from trophy hunting, but either way, if you're going to kill; do it cleanly and well, preferrably with one shot from a weapon matched to take down the game you intend to kill.

I no longer own guns or hunt. I do hike wilderness areas with a camera and nothing but a K-bar for defense and utillity. What is missing from hunting is the incredible experience of facing large predators, (cougars, wolves, bears in my experience) and letting oneanother pass with respect and knowledge. Facing a 200 lb cat and walking away to leave it to it's ecosystem is an experience that diminishes hunting to a coward's game.

Re:Sad really (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471531)

I no longer own guns or hunt. I do hike wilderness areas with a camera and nothing but a K-bar for defense and utillity.

That won't help you when you pass by my cave...

-- Ted Bear (Son of Huggy Bear, whose head you have on display above your fireplace)

Editorial in story submission (1)

AtariDatacenter (31657) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471492)

...whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine...

What do you expect them to do, only hunt down the guilty animals? Perhaps just the carnivores and omnivores? :)

Was this important to you? (3, Interesting)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471506)

I dont see a difference between killing an animal for food or sport, even if the sport is done on the web.

This sounds like passing a law for PR, nothing else. We dont need feel good, nanny laws created. This is law is purely about ones feeling about hunting, nothing more.

People need to stop passing more laws for behavior and freedoms of the people, and deal with voilent crimes, polution or robbery. They need to stay out of peoples lives and hobbies.

If they said "No Church Online" you bet there would be more people talking about this law.

Serriously, do you need to be told what you can watch, what you can eat, who you can marry, whats proper in your own home? Damn if you people dont see this is a fluff law you are a sheep.

Mmm meat (1)

dangerz (540904) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471509)

"whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine."

I'm assuming you don't like steak.

I'll take the submitter's bait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471512)

whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine.


As opposed to buying them from some conglomeration that keeps them in overcrowded facilities, or at best, buying them from some place that still offs them in ways no less repugnant that blowing their brains out. Is it more moral to slit a throat or shoot the animal through the heart?

Even worse are people like my neighbor's son's girlfriend. She's vegan and won't let him kill the slugs that are eating their food. I have to wonder what she does when she gets a cold. Moreover, since she is nowhere near self-sustaining in her crops she is supporting other people to kill the pests for her food out of her sight. It's more moral if you pay other people to do it out of your sight, I suppose.

Pretty much anything that is alive feeds off the dead in some way. Assigning things with eyes or blood or less restricted movement more importance than other forms of life is arbitrary. We must be responsible in how and why we kill but it's ignorant to bitch about someone for the act of hunting an animal. Many, if not most, hunters use the animal's remains responsibly - from skin and flesh to bones and blood, it all gets harvested. Moreover, they help keep populations in check. Would it be better for the deer to die slow deaths from diseases like spongiform? Populations always come into check from a predator of some type, so if it's not human it will be a disease or another beast.

I will admit I get some enjoyment from those occasional stories of a hunter being injured or killed by a wild animal. It says that there is at least some small semblance of the power wild animals left in our world. But still, to the original poster, I must give a hearty "Fuck you, you ignorant son of a bitch."

News... (2, Insightful)

goodgoing (810124) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471513)

Why is

whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine

appended to the end of this story? I really don't have an opinion about hunting, but trolling the front page (to get more ad impressions from comment posters?) isn't cool.

trolling (2, Funny)

jotux (660112) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471518)

whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine.

yeah! outlaw all hunting, even by other animals. How could anyone or anything ever hunt and kill an innocent dear, or bunny! We should all become communist, vegan, and move into the wilderness.


Why can't we moderate the index page?

Interstate Commerce (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471519)

Cali cannot ban internet hunting. A state cannot impose a law that infringes on interstate commerce. If I have a server in Nevada and I'm charging people to hunt, then Cali lawmakers can get bent.

If they try and stop their residents from connecting to my server, Nevada (or I) could sue at the federal level and have the law declared unconstitutional.

Right?

Hey, Now! (1)

catdevnull (531283) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471521)

"whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine."

In the post-apocalyptic world that will soon be upon us, don't you come whining to my cave about not knowing how to hunt because you can't make your own damn tofu, you insensitive clod!

but Internet fishing is NOT banned! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12471528)

- thank heavens! i've got my virtual pier all set up, with the rods baited and the tide coming in!

- want to fish? browse to:

http://www.peta.org/ [peta.org]

(betcha they didn't think of Internet fishing, right?)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Defense (1)

Jemima's Witness (861035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471539)

I be surprised one bit if the government buys this this technology for sentry guns. Look for a beta version in the sequel to America's Army.

innocent animals (1)

krappie (172561) | more than 9 years ago | (#12471542)

The slashdot writer is completely right. We need more killing of guilty animals. ;o
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>