States Ban Hunting of Live Animals over the Internet

LiveScience ^ | 07/08/06

[LibertarianInExile]

"I did not say that you said I buy steak at a store. If I intended to do that, I would have said that you are wrong about assuming I buy steak at a store."

So your response was merely intended to broadly inform, as opposed to rebut. I read into it otherwise.

"Had you known a little more about me, you would have realized that the statement that I seem twisted to them is simply illogical."

Hardly. I stand by my statement, because even upon your additional posting, I am even more certain that the folks who want to ban hunting would look at you as one who must be twisted. A vegetarian who is neither for nor against hunting? To these people, you would be more incompehensible than one who refuses to eat organic.

"The horse's ass ad hominem was a nice touch. It is an excellent debating technique, somewhat like being the first to accuse the other of being a Nazi. That's usually a winner. I guess I will begin my reading lessons on Monday. I fell into the trap of assuming a Liberatarian with a capital 'L' possesses either logic or class. I apologize for that assumption."

In fairness, I spoke in haste. I was annoyed that you mischaracterized me as at all implying YOU were a steak shopper, when I merely put forth a very analogous situation (one that you have neither refuted nor argued against with either of your posts, I might add). I was perturbed by what I considered insulting evasion. I'm not one to ignore a slight, and certainly not one to ignore evasion, and if the former was not intended, I sincerely apologize.

[doug from upland]

The steak comment was intended to inform. In retrospect, I could have probably said it more clearly, such as I don't eat meat.

As a non meateater, I still submit that the anti-hunting crowd would not think I am twisted. I don't hunt and don't favor it. They would appreciate that much of my position.

I just looked at your homepage. We have the same heroes. When I was 16, I campaigned for Goldwater and had an AU H20 sticker on my Vee Dub. As for Reagan, you might enjoy my speech at the Reagan Library.

We can be friends. :) (But people who sit in their PJs and click a mouse to kill an animal are not hunters. To be a hunter, you have to at least go brave the elements and risk getting shot by the Vice President.)

[LibertarianInExile]

"We can be friends...But people who sit in their PJs and click a mouse to kill an animal are not hunters."

I wholeheartedly concur, and hope I never implied otherwise. I dislike the notion of some pimply, pajamaed, pasty-faced puss pulling the 'trigger' to get his jollies on the death of an animal. I think some dislike hunting tv shows for the reason that so often this joviality seems to be part of it. I know that's one reason I can't watch them.

Most of the people who eat meat would be repelled at the notion that someone killed an animal for their dinner, or how it was done, if they took the time to think about it. I accept that meat eating requires an animal's death, no matter how 'humane' it may be in practice, and dislike the idea that people who relish a barbecue recoil in horror at the notion of a slaughterhouse, since the latter is required for the former. I guess my view of it is that if you can't stand what's required to get your venison or veal to the table, you shouldn't be ordering them. Credit is due to the people who can make that principled stand to either give up meat, or recognize the process required to get it as acceptably in keeping with their own ethics, instead of ordering that double cheeseburger and willfully assuming someone picked burgers off the meat tree.

"To be a hunter, you have to at least go brave the elements and risk getting shot by the Vice President."

ROFLMAO!

[Dosa26]

God bless ya!

[Calpernia]

No, not me. They weren't my animals, nor were they my purchases. I will transfer that sentiment to the seller of the animals and the buyers.

I admit, I felt great in being part of the experience since I built the website.

Thank you.

[AlaninSA]

Do you not understand the difference between a deer feeder and streaming chum behind your boat. That is, unless you chum for weeks before dropping your line.

The feeder boys here in Texas feed for weeks prior to deer season. They then, from a blind 20 feet from the feeder, shoot an animal that's been hitting the feeder for weeks.

Oh, they're tough and cunning hunters all right. This is not hunting. It's pathetic.

Can you imagine using this method?

Here's how deer hunting works in Texas.

1. Pay about $2500+ to get on a lease.

2. The lease is a containment where deer are raised like livestock.

3. The fence on the lease is about 10' high - keeps the deer in.

4. Set up your feeder and run it for 3-4 weeks (or more).

5. Camo up after sucking down your latte.

6. Climb into your blind.

7. Shoot from 20 feet away.

8. Slap this sticker on your F150 and pretend to be a man.

I grew up hunting for food in Minnesota. We hunted - did not use feeders. This involved tracking, studying sign and actually knowing our game. This crap the guys do here in Texas is unbelievable.

[Calpernia]

1. Chumming is the same concept as a feeder. Feeder is conditioning an animal to come to a specific location. This takes time to condition. Chumming however works quick and doesn't need conditioning because you are dropping fresh blood and meat into the water. Both produce the same affect.

2. A feeder on a private ranch is no different then a trough set up at a farm. This, Live-Shot.com is a private ranch. These are not wild animals being tricked. They are raised for slaughter. There is no difference between pointing and clicking for purchase then pointing and clicking to shoot.

[El Gato]

The states have the right to regulate business within their State.

No, they have the power to regulate the taking of animals. The taking of game was regulated by the Crown in England. When the United States was established, all the crown powers, save those specifically granted to the Federal government and those prohibited to the states, devolved on the states.

States are free to make such laws within their own states, and that's what they are doing in this case.

All they need ban is the taking of game by remote control, it matters not where the "remote" is located.

That said, while the practice is despicable, and is not hunting, a person should be able to slaughter his own livestock in any manner that does not constitute animal cruelty.

I do like the suggestion that the technology be applied to the Jihadis though, but what would one use for "bait"? Maybe a young virgin or a cartoon of old Mo?

[El Gato]

I grew up hunting for food in Minnesota. We hunted - did not use feeders. This involved tracking, studying sign and actually knowing our game. This crap the guys do here in Texas is unbelievable.

Different conditions require different methods. However, while I don't know, I'll bet the local tribes used some variation on baiting. Even an Indian couldn't sneak up on a deer in the dry conditions here. That forces one to the "blind" method. I'm sure they would locate their blinds near the animals feeding areas. Deer are not an endangered species in Texas. They are more like rats with antlers (and not much bigger in some cases. In San Antonio there are neighborhoods, well within the city, that are infested with the critters. We're talking ordinary suburban type neighborhoods, not acreages or the sort of places where politicians and entertainers live.

[Calpernia]

>>>All they need ban is the taking of game by remote control, it matters not where the "remote" is located.

Can you explain this to me a little further?

And what is the definition of 'game'? If an animal is raised for slaughter, just because it isn't stereotypical livestock, is it still 'game'?

And how does this carry over to wild animals? Because if I purchase live lobsters, example: http://www.mainelobsterdirect.com

Then aren't I taking 'game' via remote control?

[AlaninSA]

I live in San Antonio (hence, "Alan in SA" or AlaninSA). Yes, there are many deer in the neighborhoods here. That makes little difference in the wimp factor of the feeder hunters.

I must be hitting a sore spot with my comments.

Feeder hunters are not hunters at all. They're target shooters - and not very good ones at that. Hiding in a blind, covered in camo and warmed by your latte...and then shooting from 20 feet away at an animal that's conditioned to feed at that exact spot does not a hunter make.

[Calpernia]

Someone going to a private ranch isn't really hunting either. That would be like fishing in a stocked pond. Not really fishing either.

They are picking up an animal they purchased.

The click to shoot is merely a fancy click to purchase.

[ASA Vet]

Animals don't have ruights!

[gondramB]

>>Animals don't have ruights!<<

I almost responded that its not animals that are the problems but the very loud animal activists.

But I think that when man was given dominion over the earth by God that responsibility came with that dominion. Avoiding needless cruelty to animals is part of that responsibility, in my opinion.

[Hodar]

The difference is that the farmer, rancher or cowboy that kills and sells beef NEVER refers to what he is doing as 'Hunting'. The farmer, rancher or cowboy is growing a crop, he is harvesting the beef, pork, chicken or buffalo for food. Those animals are raised for a singular purpose. They are killed quickly, efficiently and as painlessly as we can do it.

Contrast this to the deer that is shot in the hip by an incompetent marksman, ambushed on it's way to an artifical food source (ie. deer feeder)and drags itself in a vain attempt to escape death, only to find that it is cornered in a field with 7 ft fences. The 'hunter' is in a truck with a high powered rifle (which he may or may not know to use) and ample ammo. This is about as far from 'sport' as you can get. Sadistic glee over the suffering of an animal is essentially all that this is. Glee over inflicting pain or killing a helpless and trapped animal is sadism (you are free to use any dictionary you wish to consult on this one).

If you want to call this process 'obtaining food, through torture, sadistic pleasure and profit' that's fine. But is sure isn't 'Hunting'.

[Scarchin]

I don't get it. How would this be any fun?

[LibertarianInExile]

"If you want to call this process 'obtaining food, through torture, sadistic pleasure and profit' that's fine. But is sure isn't 'Hunting'."

I didn't call it hunting. But all the criticisms you level above could be levelled easily at hunting by the extremists who pushed this bill and the go-alongers who didn't think about that concern. The similarity is far too close to allow such a ban, for it leads down the path to more extensive bans. Heck, are we going to disallow people from picking their lobster from the tank for the same reasons?

[Calpernia]

The 'hunting' in Live Shot is just a gimmick. There is a handler on scene.

This is livestock. It is called exotic livestock.

[elkfersupper]

As long as the meat isn't wasted, it doesn't really matter how the animal is harvested.

[AlaninSA]

Someone going to a private ranch isn't really hunting either. That would be like fishing in a stocked pond. Not really fishing either.

Absolutely agree with you on this. These stocked game ranches are bad enough...then you add in the feeders, blinds and shoulder howitzers...

I grew up hunting deer in the snow, wearing blaze orange and carrying a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with slugs.