Slashdot Mirror
Internet Hunting
cybergrunt69 writes "An enterprising Texan, John Underwood currently has a website that lets you target-practice online with a .22 caliber rifle, but will soon start offering "hunting" abilities. He recently built a platform for about $10,000USD to house this new system on his 300 acre properly, but the Parks and Wildlife department is now scrambling to find ways to try and stop him. While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities."
Now what would be really cool is if you did this at a paintball range and had these things in trees firing at players (with paint of course.
Of course you are guilty. I was wondering the same thing myself when I read about this earlier this morning. If some random person were walking along, and you clicked to shoot and killed them, then what? What if you're accessing the site through an anonymous proxy? How would that be dealt with? I see they are attempting to rule on whether or not you must be on site in order to make a kill, but in the meantime, what happens?
I'm interested in the possibility of a competition writing programs that would do the hunting for you.
Think of it - who can do the best open source cybernetic sniper program? Remember those neat antipersonnel guns in Aliens?
I call crapola on your post. An elk will come your way when you bugle them in during rut.
And leveling the playing field by bow hunting prior to the mating season doesn't leave you wanting for elk sightings. They are the size of horses, make enough noise to put a 4 year old to shame, crap enough to, again, put a 4 year old to shame, and can be shot with a bow by a first year inexperienced bow hunter such as myself, if you stretch and call me that. I didn't know what I was doing and ended up with a herd bedded down 100 meters from my campsite.
Hunting ain't hard. Time consuming, sure. Hard? Perhaps during Lewis' and Clark's expedition, but certainly not now!
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities.
I don't agree with this statement at all. Just because the "disabled" want to do something, doesn't mean that it has to be made able for the disabled to do. I would love to be the target of attraction for many chicks on campus (like your average slashdotter), but for some reasons (like your average slashdotter), I won't be. C'est la vie, that is my lot in life. Also, just because it would give the disabled some sort of perceived benefit, does not necessarily gives it merit. It's sort of like saying "It's for the children", when trying to argue the inherent good of something.This is another side effect of the PC movement. For some reason the differently challenged can not be told there are some things they can not do. I read an article earlier in the year where some of their advocacy groups were suing the Federal government to provide access to more wilderness areas. Now I'm sorry but as soon as you pave a roadway for access, the wilderness is gone. Now the idea that they should be able to hunt without having to leave their home is just going to far yet again. Hopefully the State can put a stop to this before it gets started.
It's interesting that in the UK, they're looking at an outright ban on all "blood sports" such as fox-hunting. True, there have been reports that UK fox-hunters may start shooting at politicians, but that's unlikely to pan out. That's just not the way it's done there.
What's interesting about it is that it undermines the whole "tradition" thing, in that it shows a society can dump a tradition it no longer believes in. Just because that's the way it was done does not mean it's the way it's got to be done now. Things can move forward and people can move on.
Sometimes traditions are there for a reason. You should never just change something for the sake of change. That's not smart. That's not even Maxwell Smart. Hunting doesn't fall into that category. Sometimes you get the rationale that it's useful to control populations. Aside from the fact that there are better methods, it throws the ecosystem into imbalance. Unless you plan on hunting a few thousand species, and have the necessary charts and tables to calculate exactly what number of each you need to zap to keep things in check.
Overhunting one species will cause an increase in those things that species consumed, which will then cause an increase in anything else which consumes those same things. The time delays in the system are such, though, that it's hard to track cause and effect.
If you've ever played the computer game "rabbits and foxes", where you give the initial number of each and see how the populations change, you know how hard it is to get a stable system. Now, imagine a system that is 5-6 species deep and perhaps a few hundred across. Factor in hunting, the changing ecosystem, etc, and you get something so staggeringly unstable it's a wonder the US has any wildlife left.
Australia wasn't so lucky. Recent studies have all but proven that human hunters obliterated something like 90% of all species in Australia. Partly through over-hunting, but also because of the indirect impact. No food for predators means no predators.
That's probably been the largest mass extinction that humans have been responsible for, but all the evidence suggests that that's only because everyone else has been unbelievably lucky, not because the system can handle such destabilization.
There is the ethical aspect, too. Studies have shown many species of animal to have higher levels of intelligence than they are usually credited with. Even without that, though, it is ethically dubious for people to go around killing something largely for the entertainment value. If they just wanted the meat, I'm sure the local abatoir could provide something superior in quality with a lower risk of a wide range of human-contractable diseases.
I accept that mine is very much a minority view in the US, though, and that hunting will not only continue for a long time but will adopt new forms of technology. Hobbyist UAVs have been around for a while. If somebody hasn't figured out how to build one large enough to carry a rifle, they will do. Then you can not only hunt online, but you get to have the "full experience".
This will happen. It's inevitable. Well, inevitable unless America has the same sort of change of heart that England has had. It may happen, but if it happens within 100-150 years, I'd be amazed. The notion that tradition is unchanging and unyielding is just too firmly fixed in American minds.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship. This completely removes both. This is purely idiotic.
Is it?
In our society, animals are considered materials for our use, as we see fit, with a few rare exceptions[1].
In the US, most hunters are those who hunt for entertainment.
Free market forces seem to indicate that there is a large enough group of people who consider this entertainment enough to exchange money for the privledge. While you or I may not consider it "fun", others do.
That being the case, I ask you:
What is the difference between shooting an animal for your personal enjoyment, and having a nice tasty turkey for Thanksgiving?
Both results in the death of an animal. Both are done for personal enjoyment (thrill of the hunt/liking the taste of turkey). Both aren't necessary.
The only difference that I see is that the wild animal has a much nicer life then the caged turkey up until the moment of death.
Yet there are many more people opposed to hunting then there are to Thanksgiving.
Disclaimer: Yep, I'm a vegan. I don't hunt or eat turkey.[2]
[1] Mostly animal cruelty laws towards "cute" animals. Animal cruelty laws do not apply towards factory farming, if they did, I would be surprised if one factory farm remained open. /. discussions I've had: Nope, I'm not going to die of some unknown vitamin deficiency. Yes, I do get enough protein. Yes, I do know that animal-derived materials are used in many common materials, such as plastic.
[2] To recap the past
And look at all the trouble that small number is causing.
If all 40 million or so Iraqis (IIRC about the population) took up arms, there'd be no country in the world that could control them.
Heck, if even 1 in 10 of the males aged 18-40 or so took up arms against the US, it would be impossible to control.
It may have been a lot easier in Lewis & Clark's time, and before, as there were a lot more animals in the woods, and they may have had less fear of humans. Fishing certainly was easier 100 or 200 years ago. Also, your average person who hunted probably had a lot more experience than modern hunters.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
It's nice that you can just go and 'buy aburger or something.' In some areas (yes in the US) you hunt to eat. I don't, have never hunted, though I fish (usually catch-and-release, but I will eat some of the fish that I catch) and know how to use a bow or firearm if necessary. I live 20 miles from Manhattan, but even fewer miles from the Highlands of New Jersey. I feel that it is a good idea to be able to surivive in the woods.
The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.
While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities.
What, exactly, is the large benefit to hunters with disabilities?
They can now "hunt" without having to deal with the non-ADA-compliant forest? I always thought that being in the forest was half the appeal of hunting in the first place.
They can once again kill something? I don't regard the thrill of victory as a valid reason for hunting.
They can once again kill something for food using a robotic weapon and, presumably, getting someone else to drag their prey home and butcher it? Might as well order up a Deluxe Pack from Omaha Steaks.
Can someone explain what this "large" benefit is?
I cannot imagine that this will last longer than a week. I know that this guy has a lot of property, and the range of a
I have one question.
Who other than Lloyds of London could insure this hair brained scheme? The premiums have to be HUGE!
I would take a
It depends on who, where, and what you're after if you consider if hunting is lopsided towards humans or not. We have bag limits and tags on anything worth eating, hunting seasons, and limitations on what you can use. Sure now we've got camoflage and scents and calls, but they aren't all that great and require skill to use. For whatever dumbass reason many hunters prefer the much less effective camo that has leaves and berries and crap printed on it than stuff that actually works. Scents? Helps for hunting some species but then at least in Oregon you can't use them for black bear unless you apply it to your own clothing! Then there's the decline in hunter skill and experience. I'm a total novice and manage to get out only maybe every other weekend at best during hunting season, but lots of people don't even do that.
Finally, some hunts are just brutal. Two years ago, my roomate lucked out and after four years unsuccessfully going after bull elk in Oregon, he got an antlerless elk tag. Elk are amazing animals, can weigh well over a half ton but take two steps into heavy brush and be gone without a trace or hardly a sound. Anyway, he spent five days in Oregon's coast range before he shot a ~900 pound cow elk. So that's December in a rain forest in Oregon. Lows below freezing, highs around 50, near-constant rain so hard that if you want a shower just stick a bar of soap on your head and stand outside for five minutes. The day he got her there were 100 mph wind gusts recorded at Bandon, just to the south. He didn't use any calls or scents, but that day got within 50 feet of her wearing a bright yellow rainsuit. Someone always visits him at elk camp to make sure he's alright, and that year it was me. He had somehow gutted, skinned, quartered, and hung her by himself and carried out about 2/3 of the meat over two miles of steep, abandoned logging roads to his truck on the "main" logging road by the time I finally found him around dusk. The next day we drove back and got the remainder and I found out what it was like to carry an elk quarter on my back for a couple miles. Or at least a big chunk of it, anyway. I had about 80 pounds of elk leg on my back, and whenever I leaned over I'd "accidentally" bonk him in the head with her hoof, which stuck out over my head by about a foot and a half. From just two trips I got some of the worst muscle pulls I've ever had, I can't imagine doing it for over a day like he did. Elk hunters are full-bore batshit insane. Tasty animal, though. Beef sucks.
But this so-called hunting from the safety and comfort of your own computer is just plain wrong, I agree.
-- snip --
I grew up in rural Wisconsin in a hunting family, and a hunting town (the place shuts down during deer hunting season). So I know what hunting is.
What you described was hunting 2 or 3 hundred years ago. If you understood our place in nature _today_ you would know that we can produce enough crops to live entirely on non-animal sources of food.
Back when it was kill or be killed there was honor in hunting for survival. Today the choice is kill, or hit the produce section of your super market. There's no honor in gratuitous killing.
You can get all that mystical hunter crap you were talking about on the way to the grocery store anyway - check it:
- Going to the grocery store is NOT a game. It really isn't any fun at all.
- Going to the store is about skill, patience, and responsability, and consequences. Cooking skill so you know what to get, patience because the store is always crowded, and you should be responsable and select organic produce.
- If you drive to the store you have to handle your deadly tool (your car) safely. Be especially careful in the parking lot - there are kids running around. And be double plus careful on icy winter roads.
- Walking around the produce section is about coming to the understanding that you are an animal that's learned to grow all the food it needs for you and your family. And only plants need to die to feed you, not animals.
- Going vegetarian is about the lengths you'll go to keep yourself and your family fed while honoring animals with their lives. Sure, it isn't easy at first. You have to learn all new recipes. Your hunting buddies will make fun of you. You have to question some of the core beliefs you were raised on. But remember, you're going to great lengths here.
- Going vegetarian is about knowing, deep in your gut, that you can live without killing animals. It is about honoring animals not by killing them but by not killing them. Sure, they may be killed more painfully by a predator than by your gun (ignoring the tremendous number of animals that are only wounded by the hunter, that limp off and slowly and painfully die. You guys ain't all dead eye shots you know.) But that _is_ a kill or be killed kind of situation, and there _is_ honor in that. Not that animals really care much about honor.
- Eating fruits and vegetables is about understanding your place in nature in 2004. You don't need to be a predator anymore. You can choose which part of the food chain you want to be connected to.
- You are SO effective at growing food that you don't need to eat animals anymore.
I agree with you that hunting isn't about "tradition" and "sportsmanship". But that isn't what "city people" think hunting is about. That's the standard propaganda that the NRA and outdoor sports magazines try and feed to "city people" to make them think hunting is about "tradition" and "sportsmanship". They even call hunters "sportsmen".Though I no longer hunt, I find myself in complete agreement with the parent. My dad took us deer hunting when I was a teen. We went four years in a row, and even though the only deer I saw were on the roofs of other folks vehicles, we had a great time. It was a fantastic bonding experience. One of the best classes I've ever had was the Michigan DNR hunter safety school...it was required for minors (and should have been for adults too).
Just another day in Paradise
Agreed, we have land in central wisconsin and will be hunting this Saturday. The life pigs, chickens, cows, etc is awful! Plus after all the hormones and antibiotics (so they get big and don't die of diseases when being so crammed) is it still meat? One of the problems we have in WI with the whitetail herd is its growing WAY to large. Yes we have gun they don't, but A. You get fresh, non chemical laced meat that had a free life. B. As I liek to say, better on your Grill (weber) then in your Grill (Ford F150).
The simple fact is that eating pasture fed animals that are slaughtered on home pastures (whether game or stock) is much more humane than the alternatives.
.22 between the eyes. We also had a contract for wild goat meat with a supplier to a number of ethnic restaurants. This meant every couple of months having the Kelpie/Border Collies round up a mob of goats (with the help of a Jackaroo on a Ag-bike) & penning them in a large yard with electric fencing that contained suffient pasture &/or saltbush. Then every week, depending on demand between 1 & a dozen or more would be slaughtered, which involved them being run up a race one by one by a dog, & then having their throats deeply slashed as their heads were ripped back so their necks broke at the same time. It may sound gruesome but their quality of life was much better than feedlot stock & their last days were much better than the lasts days of pasture stock that are trucked off to the meatworks, often via the markets as well.
.223 or a .303 bullet passing through their heads. Well other then the pouched Joeys that had their skulld smashed, but being a research station that was in the public eye (that had city types often visiting) the Roo shooter was told not to shoot obvious mature females for this very reason. He could take 50 roos a night, work that out over a year.
The alternatives being:-
1/ pasture fed stock that are packed together like sardines & truck/trained/shipped hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles for slaughtering.
2/ Feedlot stock that are penned like tinned sardines virtually all their lives in knee high shit & need to be pumped full of anti-biotics to survive & are fed on a diet that's totally unnatural (when young feedlot cattle are weaned off milk & pasture to a diet that's virtually all grain that's forced onto them, they can be chonically ill for at least a month, as cattle just arn't designed to eat a diet that's more than 15% grain for extended periods). Don't let us start on the problems caused by the lack of sunlight, etc.
It's a real pity govt regulations have meant virtually the end of on-farm slaughtering (trucking pre-slaughtered animals in refridgerated trucks is infinitly more humane). What's even worse is the govt tax policies & subsidies that encourage feedlot meat, when without such artificial influences, feedlot meat would be totally unviable compared to pasture beef/lamp/pork/whatever except for very high price niche gourmet supplies.
You see feedlot stock require constant attention, drugs, suppliments, hormones, etc, while many types of pasture stock need not ever see a human being till slaughter time.
I use to work on a 100,000 acre outback sheep station, that also kept cattle & pigs, plus feral pigs 'n goats & wild roos, so I know what I'm talking about.
Of course the sheep did need attention, including mulesing at lamp marking, shearing & diping every year & crutching mid term between the shearing, but most of the cattle only ever saw human beings up close when being rounded up for slaughter. The pigs were kept in a huge pen out the back & got the slops from the kitchens (the sheep station was a research station owned by a Uni) & were let out to graze during the day on pasture 'n saltbush. For most of the pigs the 1st time they experianced humans up close was at slaughter time, when one of the Kelpie/Border Collie crosses led them up the race to face a
Ontop of that we had a contracted Roo shooter working the property when Roos plagued up. Mind you only the 2 Roo species that were in plague numbers were slaughtered, The Roos probably had the most humane deaths of all - not knowing they were going to be a meal till they fell within the beam of a spotlight & were instantly killed by a
Au contraire! For instance, there are more whitetail deer in America today than ever before. Humans have created a far more favorable habitat for them. They like boundries -- woods/field edges -- and less mature forests.
Now there are fewer species but there are more individual animals.
For fun, calculate how much DDT would be lethal for you!