Patterico's Pontifications

5/4/2005

Ban Shooting Animals Over the Internet

Filed under: Scum — Patterico @ 9:04 pm



BoiFromTroy mocks the California Legislature for introducing a bill to ban something I never heard of before: hunting over the Internet. As reported here:

California wildlife regulators took the first step Tuesday to bar hunters from using the Internet to hunt animals long distance, responding to a Texas target-shooting site that announced plans to let hunters fire guns at real animals by clicking a computer mouse hundreds of miles away. “We don’t think Californians should be able to hunt sitting at their computers at home,” said Steve Martarano, a spokesman for the state Department of Fish and Game.

BFT’s reaction:

You know, this morning, I was jolted out of bed thinking, “wouldn’t it just be terrible if people could hunt real animals over the internets, because if we do not stop that, California will just be a horrible place to live.”

Luckily, California regulators and the legislature is putting other priorities aside–like balancing the budget and ensuring our children get a good education–to deal with the problem . . .

Here I have a rare disagreement with BFT. I find this concept disgusting, and I applaud the Legislature’s decision to take action now, to prevent this travesty from occurring here in our state.

And as for the idea that the Legislature should be doing more important things: meh. There’s plenty more trivial stuff than this.

12 Responses to “Ban Shooting Animals Over the Internet”

  1. I agree with you that it is hunting over the internet is a stupid idea. I also doubt they will be very successful.

    My point is simple. The Speaker’s spokesman, Steve Maviglio, said that the reason they can’t work with the Governor on reforming the State budget, bureaucracy, etc. is because they are working on the issues that Californians wake up every morning thinking about.

    Bills like this–although they may have some merit–prove Maviglio’s statement wrong.

    boifromtroy (6285d0)

  2. I understand the part about banning Internet-based hunting where the actual killing and bagging occurs in California. But banning Californians from logging into a site in Texas where it’s legal? That’s just silly. While we’re at it, let’s pass a blanket law making it illegal for any California resident to leave the state with intent to perform any other legal activities which, if conducted in California, would be illegal?

    Xrlq (ffb240)

  3. But banning Californians from logging into a site in Texas where it’s legal? That’s just silly.

    Why? If Texas makes child porn legal, should it be permissible to watch it over streaming video from your computer in California?

    Patterico (2aa5f3)

  4. “Why? If Texas makes child porn legal, should it be permissible to watch it over streaming video from your computer in California?”

    No. And obviously Texas is not about to make child porn legal. But if our ‘wonderful’ legislators can make this undertaking illegal, why not others *they* don’t like? Such as reading certain blogs with controversial content. Our constituion is supposed to protect us from stupid legislators and their antics – not from our own stupidity.

    Hunting animals from the Internet is stupid, but if hunting those animals is otherwise legal, why should the injection of the Internet into the activity make it illegal? I don’t understand the rationale other than from a generalized anti-hunting point of view.

    F15C (3d1c2f)

  5. No. And obviously Texas is not about to make child porn legal. But if our ‘wonderful’ legislators can make this undertaking illegal, why not others *they* don’t like? Such as reading certain blogs with controversial content. Our constituion is supposed to protect us from stupid legislators and their antics – not from our own stupidity.

    Hunting animals from the Internet is stupid, but if hunting those animals is otherwise legal, why should the injection of the Internet into the activity make it illegal? I don’t understand the rationale other than from a generalized anti-hunting point of view.

    Reading blogs with controversial content is completely different. There’s no meaningful analogy there.

    The rationale is that hunting animals over the Internet makes it like a video game. You are too divorced from the reality of what you are doing.

    Patterico (2aa5f3)

  6. Child porn and “video hunting” (to coin a term) are not meaningful analogies, either. On top of
    that, you are blissfully ignoring the federal anti-child porn laws that exist.

    OK, what if the internet feature allowed the shooting of a telephoto 35MM picture, which would
    be mailed to you? Still got an objection?

    How about if the camera showed a herd of cattle, and your crosshair mouse click sent the cowboys out to cull that steer, butcher it and send you the meat via FedEx? Getting a little closer to why you feel like you do?

    Sorry, I think that it’s a stupid idea, and the first time (if not sooner) that some jerk gut shoots one, the Texas Game Commission will put them out of business, but California controlling what someone does on the internet because they dont like it, not because what is being done is illegal, definitely falls on the “slippery slope”.

    bud (46e4bf)

  7. “The rationale is that hunting animals over the Internet makes it like a video game. You are too divorced from the reality of what you are doing.”

    I agree, but why does that mean it should be illegal? Stupid and cowardly yes, but why illegal? Also, you are correct that reading a blog *may* be a different thing, but what if the content is deemed unsuitable for Californians by our legislators and thus renderend illegal? I should have chosen a better analogy, however the core issue is the same. Our legislators are wasting our time on matters like this. This state is trashed and they (the legislature) ‘fiddle’ like this while we burn. It is infuriating. This is a matter best worked out by the people and the market.

    Once the legislature balances our budget, gets our schools up to speed, and honestly deal with a few hundred other *important* matters, then they can start playing nanny in matters like this.

    F15C (3d1c2f)

  8. Child porn and “video hunting” (to coin a term) are not meaningful analogies, either. On top of that, you are blissfully ignoring the federal anti-child porn laws that exist.

    bud,

    You aren’t understanding my point, which is not to compare this style of hunting to child porn, but rather to respond to Xrlq’s point that a state should not regulate what its citizens do on the computer if it’s legal in another state. Assume that the feds had no child porn laws. Would that make my hypothetical okay?

    To those complaining that this is a trivial issue, are you really claiming that this is the most trivial issue being taken up by the California Legislature? And, are you really claiming that, but for this, they’d have the schools and budget fixed?

    You’ve heard of the phrase “walk and chew gum at the same time.” This is a little different. The Legislature is incapable of chewing gum (fixing the important issues) whether they are walking (passing this legislation), sitting, standing, or running. So let ’em walk. At least they’re getting *something* useful done . . .

    Patterico (756436)

  9. The child porn analogy doesn’t cut it. The reasons for banning child porn go beyond the illegality of the process by which it was made. Even virtual child porn, where no real children where involved, was banned for a while but struck down in court IIRC. If the states were on their own, California would have legitimate reasons to want to keep all child porn off its markets, regardless of whether or not any Californian children were being endangered by it.

    By contrast, California has no interest at all in limiting its citizens’ ability to hunt in Texas.

    Xrlq (6c76c4)

  10. Could you elaborate on the interests involved? What would be the interest (in your view) of California’s banning the possession of child porn if the true victims were in another state — particularly one where it’s legal?

    To make the example a little less outrageous, what if Texas lowered the age at which something is considered “child pornography” by a year? What is California’s interest in banning the viewing of a 17-year-old engaged in pornographic acts in Texas?

    Understand that *I* don’t think California would have a problem justifying it. But I don’t see the difference between this example and the hunting one. If your thought is that Californians should be able to do whatever they like with their computers if the real action is taking place legally in another state, then what is the difference between the animal hunting situation and my hypo — in your view?

    Patterico (8b35d5)

  11. To clarify my ‘walk and chew gum’ comment on the legislature, I think you and I agree that video hunting is outrageous, cowardly, and stupid. But I for one am infinitely more outraged by the overwhelming ills faced by this state that are receiving no attention – or worse are being exacerbated. Also, in no way do I believe that “but for this, they’d have the schools and budget fixed”. Would that it were true and that simple. But you and I know it is not. But by not calling the legislature on time and money wasting legislation such as this, we condone their continued incompetent performance. This is about priorities, not simply ‘doing something’. I don’t want the legislature doing anything that is not repairing this state’s problems. So, to be clear, given their record, I’d much prefer they do nothing rather than waste time on legislation such as we are discussing here. And for the record, yes I believe the California aspect to video hunting in Texas is trivial compared against the many safety, budget, water, growth, transportation, education, and health issues faced by the people of this state. Absolutely.

    F15C (3d1c2f)

  12. Another aspect of this potential law is enforcement. Not having read the proposed legislation, I’m curious about how they would enforce this law. Would the Texas video-hunting company be required to not provide their service to California residents? Will ISPs operating in CA be forced to monitor our Internet use for possible infractions? Would it be illegal for a resident of TX or some other state participate in video hunting from a computer located in CA? What if a CA resident uses a pay service that does not report residency information to the video hunting service provider? Or would we all be on the (guffaw) honor system?

    Obviously this type of Internet nanny’ism raises significant enforcement issues that will be faced by businesses and the CA taxpayer. Let’s save that path for matters of true import – like child porn for example.

    PS: Though we disagree on this issue, I’m a regular reader and appreciate the work you do on this blog. Keep it up.

    F15C (3d1c2f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0846 secs.