quote:BULVERDE, Tex. -- On a tranquil Central Texas landscape, three fallow deer wandered through live oak and cedar as a rifle barrel poked out of a small shack nearby. With a metallic click, the Remington, clutched in a motorized steel cradle without a hunter at the trigger, swiveled to track them.
The gun's scope showed the cross hairs settle right behind a buck's shoulder and hold steady, a perfect aim that would kill the animal in one clean shot -- if the hunter wanted to fire the gun. More than 1,300 miles away in Indiana, looking at his computer screen, he decided to pass. This hunter wants to bag a blackbuck antelope, and he will wait to click the computer mouse that will send the electronic signal to shoot.
It is called hunting by remote control, the brainchild of Texas entrepreneur John Lockwood, whose Internet business advertises a "real time on-line hunting and shooting experience."
...
Bills to ban the cyberspace activity are moving through at least 14 state legislatures from Hawaii to Maine, including hunter-friendly Texas. Virginia lawmakers passed prohibitions that take effect July 1. The California Fish and Game Commission ordered emergency regulations last week to bar hunters there from using the Internet to shoot animals, and last month, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department banned Internet hunting of native Texas game animals. A move to shut down the venture for good is percolating in Congress, where a bill to prohibit "computer-assisted remote hunting" was introduced recently.
In a rare alliance, hunters and the National Rifle Association have joined forces with their traditional foes, the animal welfare and Humane Society activists. And some scholars, not surprised to see violent computer games elevated to another level, are questioning the propriety of an enterprise that blurs the line between the reality of man-stalks-beast in the great outdoors to the virtual anonymity of shooter-pulls-trigger from thousands of miles away.
"The problem here is . . . the distance. It increases our sense that real killing is an anonymous activity," said Kirk O. Hanson, executive director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California. "You use something familiar, a mouse, to fire the weapon . . . much as computer games that involve shooting human or animal objects. Technically it's possible. But as a society, do we want to do this?"
Does anyone think this changes the moral equation involved in sport hunting. Let's assume that the meat would be donated whether the hunter was there or not, and that the display will be sent to the hunter.
Let's also assume that there's no moral issue with someone sitting in a blind all day and shooting an antelope.
Does the fact that the person is sitting in front of a computer a thousand miles away change the morality of the hunt? If so, why?
posted
I just think it's a wimpy way to hunt. Whatever happened to bows and arrows, or hunting with your bare hands? Now that is manly. Cyber hunting takes all the sportmanship out of it, not to mention the fact that you are not outdoors running around in the woods with other people. You might as well be playing a regular shooting game or something.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
and I seem to recall a discussion in one of my groups about this some time ago. Maybe it wasn't the same company, but I think someone managed to find an article indicating that what the "hunter" saw on screen was not necesarily realtime feed and there were questions about the validity of the company's claims. Let me see if I can find that old discussion...
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always figured the point of hunting was to be outside and enjoy nature, while simultaneously blowing the crap out of it (Joke). No really. This just shows how lazy people are getting in this country. I don't know if this is morally any different than actually hunting, but it is certainly much more hedonistic.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You might as well be playing a regular shooting game or something.
I agree with that sentiment entirely. But does this make it less moral? I suppose that if the same benefit to the participant could be obtained without killing an animal, it would be a valid factor in the moral calculus. But this guy was going to eat the meat and display the antlers - there could arguably be some difference in quality in both in his knowing he's the one who waited, aimed, and fired.
quote:Maybe it wasn't the same company, but I think someone managed to find an article indicating that what the "hunter" saw on screen was not necesarily realtime feed and there were questions about the validity of the company's claims. Let me see if I can find that old discussion...
Now that brings up an interesting point. If the client's thinking he's the one that brought it down matters to his ultimate enjoyment, then fooling him into thinking he did it wouldn't hurt him unless he found out. But, it would be lying.
quote:I always figured the point of hunting was to be outside and enjoy nature, while simultaneously blowing the crap out of it (Joke). No really. This just shows how lazy people are getting in this country. I don't know if this is morally any different than actually hunting, but it is certainly much more hedonistic.
Well, calling this client lazy is a bit of a stretch - he's paralyzed. Although I bet non-paralyzed people will use the service, too.
I agree there's something unsavory about this, and hedonism may be a large part of that. It seems similar to people who shot buffalo from trains for no other reason than to kill.
One reason this fascinates me is that I'm not a hunter and don't really understand the appeal. It's a good moral exercise to try to understand such activities, I think.
quote:I think there's already been a thread on this?
I searched, and didn't see anything. But I didn't try a lot of variations.
posted
Since I think that hunting animals for sport/entertainment is not necessarily a very moral activity to begin with, making it remote doesn't make any more/less "moral". It does make it more creepy though - since the "hunter" is being insulated somewhat (emotionally as well as physically) from the act of killing.
posted
Who cleans it up? I mean, you know there's an internet controlled gun in the woods, and you're going to go out there and fetch the carcass? It's just dumb on so many levels. Though if I were running this business, I would do it on private land.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is on private land, and the owner cleans it and ships it.
The kids thing doesn't seem too likely, because I doubt the gun control is live when their are people out there. I do worry that if a deer gets wounded someone needs to go run it down. The rates in the article make it pretty clear the thing can't be manned full-time.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a hunter I am appalled by this. There is more to hunting than just killing, really. I hunt in part to enjoy nature. Hiking through the woods, or climbing a mountain is fun. There is also a certain thrill to shooting an animal, but for me at least, that thrill is not the primary reason why I hunt. In addition, hunting requires a certain amount of skill in woodscraft and shooting, and it requires a good deal of physical exertion, patience, and knowledge of animals and their behavior. A large part of hunting for me is the sense of accomplishment in developing those skills and traits, and also it really helps me to feel more in tune than nature. In addition, at the end of the hunt, there's a satisfaction in knowing that you've provided food for your family. My dad and I usually each get a deer in the fall, and that is sufficient to feed us through most of the year, so we don't have to purchase beef at the grocery store.
Having a remote controlled gun to kill animals takes away everything sporting or fun about hunting. Furthermore, at home on your computer, you really can't be as emotionally involved in the hunt, and if you miss and injure an animal, there's nothing you can do about it from your home. There's nothing worse than a hunter who wounds a deer and then lets it wander off to die in agony over several days. Ideally every hunter should be able to kill an animal with one shot. For that reason I try to practice shooting for several months before deer season, and I know my limits and won't shoot a deer out of my range.
I think most hunters would agree with me, as you can see from the fact that the NRA joined in with the bill to ban this sort of thing. Clicking a button on your mouse is too easy a thing. I do it a thousand times a day, but when you pull a trigger on a gun, you know it's not a light matter. My hands shake a little every time I pick one up, it's not a toy, and you shouldn't fire it too easily. Being able to fire one as simply as clicking a button on a mouse scares me.
Another consideration though, is the fact that this gun is controlled by a computer. Call me a little paranoid, but what if there's a power surge, or the signal is garbled and the gun starts shooting without being told to. That's a scary situation for both nearby animals and for people that might be near by. Also a gun like that, you can't tell where you bullet where end up. A bullet fired from a high powered rifle can go over two miles before it drops to the ground. If you don't know what's behind your target you could be firing towards homes, cattle, or even a roadway.
In short, I'm glad that they're making this sort of thing illegal. I find it hard to believe anyone would think it was a good idea, though I guess I shouldn't be too surprised at the things people do.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which of those reasons for disliking it are valid reasons for banning it, though?
Safety is certainly a legitimate object of state regulation, but safety objections are easy to overcome (although not necessarily in such a way as to let it remain profitable).
Are the skill and connection to nature reasons sufficient to justify state regulation? I mean, I oppose criminalizing a lot of things I consider to be very, very immoral.
If the safety and animal suffering concerns can be met, is the perversion of hunting sufficient reason for a ban?
Dagonee P.S., these really are sincere questions. Banning fox hunting would have been seen as inconceivable to Victorian Englands who imposed severe penalties on homosexuals. What are the immoral qualities of an act that make it worthy of the coercive power of the state?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I always figured the point of hunting was to be outside and enjoy nature
That's just what I used to think until I joined up with Pancho and his gang. You can be sure that the purpose of hunting is to get drunk and to swap bawdy stories with your compadres. Can you imagine the stories around the campfire if those English allowed homosexuals to hunt?
Posts: 35 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, you lost me, I'm afraid. I don't see the connection.
If you don't buy the concept of someone who doesn't know it is real treating it as a game, what about the danger of the connection being hacked? I have to say I can only think of practical objections. I can't put my finger on the grand moral implications.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The practical concerns are easily handled - field of fire warnings on the grounds, clearance checks, physical limiters on the range of motion for the gun, and actual removal of the gun from the actuator when it's not safe would limit the problems with hackers. Could mistakes be made? Yes. But they wouldn't be any more likely than real-life hunting if the proper precautions were taken.
As for the connection, my point is that viewing wild animals as anything but our rightful prey is a relatively new perception in the scheme of things (in Anglo-American culture, not worldwide). A lot of people seem to support banning this for almost aesthetic reasons, and I wonder if that's a valid reason for criminalizing something.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Which of those reasons for disliking it are valid reasons for banning it, though?
For me the primary reasons to ban it are two-fold, first I think we'd all agree that killing something, anything, is important, and it is very emotional. To me one of the most frightening things is a person that can kill without compunction. This technology simply makes it too easy to kill for fun, and a lot of what I was getting at in my first post is that there's more to hunting than killing, but there isn't more to this technology than killing.
Secondly safety and a concern for injured animals are very valid reasons to ban it.
Another consideration, though, is the place of this in an overall ecological outlook. In most states hunting is regulated by the fish and wildlife department or something similar and they work with the Department of Natural Resources to manage state lands. Hunting certain species is permitted to keep populations in check and prevent natural population controls like disease and starvation. Hunting over the internet makes it very commercial, and it would be too easy for someone to set up a little stand in the middle of their property and unbalance the population. Poaching happens, though no one is very happy about it, but I see in this technology an opportunity to exploit poaching, and possible to put pressure on game managers to allow more tags as this becomes a source of income. Many states use the fees for hunting permits in part to fund state parks and the like, so an opportunity to earn more revenue would be very tempting, and overhunting could become a problem in states where this was permitted.
Finally, and this isn't a reason to ban it, just a personal objection, there are several very fun computer games that let you 'hunt' animals even including video feeds where you can shoot at an animal, this in no way compares to real hunting, and I don't see why someone would pay to do this, with the only difference being that an animal actually dies every time you want to shoot at something.
quote: What are the immoral qualities of an act that make it worthy of the coercive power of the state?
That's a heavy question, and I think it'd take a very long post to answer it, even then it would probably be insufficient. To be quite honest, it seems that morality often leads to laws restricting people's actions. It's a tricky thing deciding whose opinion is 'right,' but in most democracy's it's supposed to be the most popular opinion. Others would say that those who are in charge, or who have a special knowledge of the case should decide morality.
In this case, most hunters realize that hunting is privilege not a right. It is tightly controlled by the state and most hunters respect the sometimes arbitrary seeming rules that come with it. For instance, in my home state about 8 or 9 years ago now a law was passed banning all types of 'constrictive traps.' The majority of people who voted on the referendum decided that allowing an animal to be caught in a trap by the leg or neck, even if the trap was supposed to kill instantly was immoral. Because of that law mole and mouse traps are now illegal and punishable by a heavy fines, but many who voted for that law didn't realize that they were voting to make mouse traps illegal. They see a distinction between catching and killing a mouse and say catching and killing a coyote. Is there a moral difference between the two that there shouldn't be a law restricting one and not the other? I don't know.
What I think is interesting is the collection of groups that oppose this remote controlled rifle. Simply having this coalition of heavily funded groups from both sides of the spectrum will guarantee that it will be banned, and I for one won't be sorry for it. Does it make it right to ban it? I don't know. It's tempting to say that's the way it is. If you think other things are immoral enough to outlaw, all you have to do is convince enough other people to agree with you, and you can probably have it outlawed too. I realize you probably have a different perspective of the law, as a law student, but most people I know don't consider the 'law' as anything resembling an authority on morality. They either observe it out of fear of the consequences, or they observe the parts of it that they would observe even if it weren't in existence. For instance most people don't murder because they think murder is wrong, not because they're afraid of a prison sentence, but most observe the speed limit because they're afraid of a fine, not because they think it's somehow moral to drive 55 mph.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Syn
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
