The main problem with online hunting is that it reduces the chances of hunters shooting each other.

That can't be a good thing.

Accidental shootings are one of the few ways our society can control the hunter population. It's called "culling the herd".

DaveNalle, I noticed your 'pitch line' from the BC front page ("Now liberals can hunt without getting icky blood and sweat all over them - through the web.") isn't anywhere in the body of your text.

So it appears your 'marketing' approach to potential readers is based on yet one more silly, trivial shot against the dreaded 'liberals'.

Yer such a dick.

And pinning the term "icky" on an imaginary liberal seems to be some implicit reference to imply liberals are effeminate -- or maybe [gasp!] kinda gay.

Just for the record, this effeminate "liberal" could whup yer little gun-toting, web-cam killin' ass with one icky, blood-stained hand tied behind his back.

Just for the record, ya unnerstan...

: )

"Yet based on the video I've seen it's pretty sporting for the animals, as it's anything but easy to aim the gun using a webcam and a mouse."

So if the sniper on top of the building is a bad shot, does that make it sporting for the people on the ground? (And, no, I'm not saying that animals and humans are the same -- just that it's not "sporting" to make it impossible for your prey to know they are, in fact, prey.)

People are lazy and they cheapen life. I might not agree with real hunting, but I can accept it. It does not preclude a reverence for the life they are taking away. But some joker across the country, sitting at his computer? Who could have the same experience with a video game, but needs to know the body count is real?

Grotesque.

By the way, I have been told I'm rather effeminate. Must be the breasts.

>>But some joker across the country, sitting at his computer? Who could have the same experience with a video game, but needs to know the body count is real?<<

If you read the article, the example of someone who's actually used the service is a former hunter who was hit by a truck and lost the use of his arms and legs and this is the only way he'll enjoy the sport again. Are you saying this guy is a joker or perhaps a sadist?

As for Snark's comments - well, there really is no response to loony ravings. There's not enough room in those tag-line things to put a good description, so why not put one that brings people to read the post. Plenty of liberals are hunters too - even Kerry pretended to be one during the election.

My main point about web hunting is that while it's not exactly hunting as most of us know it, why should the government be trying so hard to shut down a rather clever entrepreneurial effort like this?

Dave

Dave,
I know they are trying to sell this as hope for the disabled, but at no point are they mentioning refusing this "service" to the able-bodied. They want money and all the rest is just spin.

What I *am* saying is that there is something odious to me about this practice and whether or not someone is in a wheelchair is irrelevent to me in my feelings on whether or not I find it to be ethical.

I make no bones about the fact that I'm not a hunter and have no intention of hunting. I can grudgingly respect someone doing the work of hunting -- especially if they are committed to a clean kill. I cannot fathom what someone would get out of hunting by computer that they cannot get from a video game...the only difference is that there is an animal which is really dead.

What is it Meg Ryan said in You Got Mail when Tom Hanks told her making her go out of business is nothing personal? Basically that something like that should be, if nothing else, personal.

If you are wanting to kill an animal shouldn't that be personal? Shouldn't there be an effort if you wish to claim it as a sport? Shouldn't you be within real range of the animal? Shouldn't the animal have a sporting chance?

Everything in my heart and soul tells me that if an animal dies for you -- to feed you or for your personal "sport" -- there should be some sense of the magnitude of that. Some gratitude.

I'm not asking people not to eat meat. I'm not asking people not to hunt. I'm merely saying that there is a disconnect here.

>>I know they are trying to sell this as hope for the disabled, but at no point are they mentioning refusing this "service" to the able-bodied. They want money and all the rest is just spin.<<

True enough, but this is why I like them. It's a classic example of creative entrepreneurism at work, and a really intriguing new way to put the web to work. Putting aside the issue of hunting, the idea of manipulating servos through the web is really intriguing. Yikes. Think of the applications this might have for adult websites alone...

>>I make no bones about the fact that I'm not a hunter and have no intention of hunting. I can grudgingly respect someone doing the work of hunting -- especially if they are committed to a clean kill. I cannot fathom what someone would get out of hunting by computer that they cannot get from a video game...the only difference is that there is an animal which is really dead.<<

A dead animal is a dead animal. And with the current restrictions on this site, they're restricted to vermin anyway. If you've ever had to deal with rampaging destructive deer or feral pigs you'd have little sympathy for them. Anything that makes them dead is ok with me.

>>If you are wanting to kill an animal shouldn't that be personal? Shouldn't there be an effort if you wish to claim it as a sport? Shouldn't you be within real range of the animal? Shouldn't the animal have a sporting chance?<<

The animal never has a sporting chance in my experience. That's just a bit of PR from the hunting lobby.

>>Everything in my heart and soul tells me that if an animal dies for you -- to feed you or for your personal "sport" -- there should be some sense of the magnitude of that. Some gratitude.<<

When the hammer hits the cow in the forehead does the cow have a sporting chance? Is that going to stop people from eating it?

My one thought on this is that if you kill the animal online you should eat it. And in this case the people running the website do package and freeze the meat and ship it to you, so that responsibility is covered.

Dave

"If you've ever had to deal with rampaging destructive deer or feral pigs you'd have little sympathy for them. Anything that makes them dead is ok with me."

I'm sorry, do you know me? On what are you basing your knowledge of my reactions?

Having nearly 37 years of knowledge about me, I know you are mistaken. What you mean is that *you* have little sympathy for them.

"When the hammer hits the cow in the forehead does the cow have a sporting chance? Is that going to stop people from eating it?"

Going to the grocery store and buying animals that have been slaughtered is a tradition in this society. Right or wrong. Hunting is a tradition. Right or wrong. Why are we starting a new bloody tradition? I know you think it sounds like a great way to make a few bucks, but the sheer repulsiveness overrides my admiration.

"My one thought on this is that if you kill the animal online you should eat it. And in this case the people running the website do package and freeze the meat and ship it to you, so that responsibility is covered."

Why? You are the one who says a dead animal is a dead animal?

As to whether the animals in the normal course of hunting have a sporting chance...I don't think it's a truly even chance for them, but it is a chance. It goes back to my sniper analogy...where is the real challenge if the thing you wish to kill is not even aware someone has them in their sights?

You admire it as a financial thing and another gadgety thing. I find it too grotesque to admire on any level. I would hope that I'm not alone in this.

>>"If you've ever had to deal with rampaging destructive deer or feral pigs you'd have little sympathy for them. Anything that makes them dead is ok with me."

I'm sorry, do you know me? On what are you basing your knowledge of my reactions?

Having nearly 37 years of knowledge about me, I know you are mistaken. What you mean is that *you* have little sympathy for them. <<

True enough, but by extrapolation I find it hard to believe anyone with experience of these animals could have a lot of sympathy for them over the long term. Bambi may be cute, but 100 starving bambis destroying your yard trying to get to your idiot neighbor's feeder cease to be cute.

>>Going to the grocery store and buying animals that have been slaughtered is a tradition in this society. Right or wrong. Hunting is a tradition. Right or wrong. Why are we starting a new bloody tradition? I know you think it sounds like a great way to make a few bucks, but the sheer repulsiveness overrides my admiration.<<

It sounds like the two traditions you mention coming together to form a grand new tradition for a new era. Like slaughtering cattle, but you get to do it yourself.

>>"My one thought on this is that if you kill the animal online you should eat it. And in this case the people running the website do package and freeze the meat and ship it to you, so that responsibility is covered."

Why? You are the one who says a dead animal is a dead animal?<<

Yes, but if you kill something you're responsible for it. And the responsible way to deal with tasty animals is to eat them.

>>As to whether the animals in the normal course of hunting have a sporting chance...I don't think it's a truly even chance for them, but it is a chance. It goes back to my sniper analogy...where is the real challenge if the thing you wish to kill is not even aware someone has them in their sights?<<

I imagine they can see the computer and the minders who are there with it, plus it's actually much harder to aim and shoot a gun through the web than in person. If anything they have more of a chance.

>>You admire it as a financial thing and another gadgety thing. I find it too grotesque to admire on any level. I would hope that I'm not alone in this.<<

Clearly you're not since the majority of the fundamentalist neocons in the Texas State Legislature seem to lean the same way.

Dave

Dave-
Trust me that I've been inconvenienced by, threatened by, and run through the wringer by animals. I know my reactions.

I had a finger which was partially paralysed for two years due to a cat bite. I still did not want its head on a platter.

Not only have I had animals my whole life, I have extensive experience working with them (aggressive animals included.) I promise that I have a pretty decent grasp of my levels of compassion concerning them -- even when they are difficult, costly, dangerous, or distructive.

Every animals has a survival instinct -- feral pigs and hungry deer included. While I can dislike the damage and distruction they do, I can appreciate the reasons.

Animals have their own needs and desires. Domesticated animals -- as the name implies -- are beholden to humans and expected to obey. Wild animals don't have -- nor should they have -- the same imperative.

The problem here is that we have a fundamental disagreement which will not be resolved. So many of the things you write are so contrary to my core beliefs that I know, on this issue, we will not breach the gap.

There's a difference between a peevish pet and a wild animal which is part of an overpopulated species because we've killed off their natural predators and idiots keep feeding the damned things.

You're obviously not going to kill an obnoxious cat just for biting you once, but if it did it over and over and became a menace you might consider having it put down.

Well, the way things are here in Texas, wild species like Coyotes, Feral Pigs and Deer have become a menace. They are overpopulated and out of control and have to be dealt with. Killing them is a public service.

Dave

So Dave, when's the modem, rifle, and servo goin' up on the terrace of a Baghdad high rise?

I'll invest in yer new company!

Yer partner and new pal,
Shark

I imagine if you email that idea to Daily Kos they could pass it on to their friends over in Baghdad and the terrorists could have a new source of income.

The only people I'm in touch with over there want to help people, not shoot them.

Dave

DaveNalle: "...The only people I'm in touch with over there want to help people, not shoot them."

Hey, I thought current American policy meant they're one and the same...?

You help the good people by shooting the bad ones. Seems to be one thing everyone can agree on.

Dave

The cat was not my pet. The cat was not anything to me other than a cat where I worked. I still had compassion for the cat.

I understand that pets and wild animals are different. Although feral cats have basically became wild animals again and are quite dangerous if cornered. I want to be there when you tell someone that works with them that a feral cat is equal to a peevish pet. You also might want to share this perception with the State of Wisconsin that wants to hunt them. (Believe me, the population levels of cat communities rival the other animals you mention. In short, to quote you, "a wild animal which is part of an overpopulated species.")

My point is that I know my tolerance level with animals -- you do not.

Also, there is a difference between humanely euthanizing an animal and being vindictive. You act as there is some sort of grudge match going on with you and the wild animal populations.

We shouldn't be able to kill living creatures simply because there are a lot of them and they are nuisances...if we could the commute to work would be a real adventure. :)

I accept that we are the dominant species and it is our nature to put ourselves first, but why is the first reaction to harken back to Rambo? If we cannot attempt to share this world with wildlife, what chances do we have to live with one another?

Again, I think we are just too opposed on this and it is not a light issue with me -- more a core belief. I don't believe there is any more we can say and not be repetitious.

To get off on a nonpolitical tangent, I could see this whole thing as a great script for a TV cop show - CSI, maybe?

Okay, back to your rants now.:)

I imagine if you email that idea to Daily Kos they could pass it on to their friends over in Baghdad and the terrorists could have a new source of income.

Are you implying that Daily Kos supports terrorism?

If so, that's a vicious and potentially libelous thing to say.

Please explain / provide proof.

Give me a break, Eric. Kos supports anything that's anti-American.

Let me quote Tom Delay:

"Daily Kos, which is an organization that raises money for fighters against the U.S. in Iraq,"

I believe him to be wrong. Daily Kos does not, as far as I can tell, actually raise money for terrorists.

If they want to go after someone for libel they should start with Delay. As for vicious, sure I am. Nothing is too vicious to say about Kos.

He is the guy who said 'screw them' about the American contractors killed in Fallujah and commented that he thought they deserved to die, and then tried to cover it up when his advertisers dropped him and other blogs removed their links to him.

Kos is nothing but a leftist spinmonger, taking news out of context and feeding it like pablum to the kool-aiders of the left.

Dave

Dave - With all respect, you're about as rightist (or whateverist you want to be called) a spinmonger as they come.

Well, I may be mongering a bit of spin, but it's not rightist spin, it's truthist spin. Hmmm that sounded moderately ludicrous.

All I'm doing is trying to promote a bit of common sense and a lot less ideological extremism and irrationality on both sides. I tend to single out the left more than the right, because more potentially sane people seem to fall for the leftist spin, and the extremism from the right is so blatantly obvious that it doesn't fool anyone who's not already completely nuts and beyond redemption.

Dave