How Internet Hunting Works

In Texas, where Internet hunting originated, laws regarding hunting were set up for­ so-called regulated animals such as birds or deer. Lawmakers could not have foreseen the practice of long-distance hunting [source: BBC]. However, as soon as Internet hunting began, legislators took action amending laws to make providing or participating in Internet hunting illegal. Various animal rights groups have also risen to the cause against Internet hunting. The U.S. Humane Society, for example, has supported legislation for a federal ban on it.

­The same month that the inaugural Internet hunting event was scheduled, Virginia became the first state to ban remote-control hunting. Republican delegate G. Glenn Oder, who introduced the bill in the state legislature, claimed to have the only bill of the session to win support from two organizations rarely in agreement: the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASCPCA) and the National Rife Association (NRA) [source:Moreno].

Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California, and Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, introduced the Computer-Assisted Remote Hunting Act, H.R. 2711 to the U.S. House of Representatives [source: Humane Society]. Davis wanted the practice to carry a penalty as high as a five-year prison term. During the summer of 2007, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

A similar bill, S.2422, has been introduced in the U.S. Senate. After being read twice, it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in December 2007. Because the Internet is both interstate and international in scope, lawmakers argue that federal legislation is needed.

But what about the other side of the argument? Aim your site on the next section to find out.

The first person to sign up for Internet hunting at the Texas-based site was a paraplegic who lived several states away. No longer able to hunt after breaking his neck in an accident nearly 20 years earlier, the man was excited to be­ able to hunt again. He asked for a particular animal that he did not see and chose not to kill the more readily available deer instead [source: Axtman].

Another client was an American soldier in Iraq, unsure when his next hunting trip back home might be. A third client was another U.S. soldier who wanted the meat sent to his family [source: Axtman].

The Texas entrepreneur who brought remote-control hunting to the Internet claims that his concealed weapon, mounted on a tripod, equates to the way that hunters conceal themselves with blinds. He also says that pulling a trigger and clicking a mouse are the same action. Why then, he asks, should hunters be deprived of the thrill of hunting because of injury or distance [source:Moreno]?

Despite the possible advantage that Internet hunting offers to the disabled or those in the armed forces, very few people or organizations embrace the idea of computer-assisted remote hunting. There are always two sides to any argument, so what does the other side have to say about Internet hunting? Read on to learn some of the reasons that people are up in arms.

The t­erm "fair chase" is used to describe a major element of hunting. It refers to a physical presence in the field with the animals, using a bow or a firearm, as part of the sporting tradition. Opponents say that clicking a computer mouse long distance is a far cry from that tradition [source: Humane Society].

­Surprisingly, organizations like Safari Club International, which supports the hunting of exotic trophy animals, and the National Rifle Association both oppose Internet hunting [source: Humane Society]. Even hunters themselves have spoken out against computer-assisted remote hunting, citing the need for maintaining good sportsmanship and the physical experience of hunting in nature. Many hunters view traditional hunting as a time to share with friends and to get away from civilization or as an opportunity to provide their families with food. They distinguish between hunting and killing [source: Axtman].

Another argument against the practice of remote-controlled hunting is that it doesn't require any knowledge of state or local laws regarding hunting or wildlife. Other concerns include the distancing of the hunter from the act of killing, so that it becomes a way to be desensitized to death. Furthermore, it extends no respect to animals. Yet another issue is the potential danger to humans at the ranch site. Although the workers there have the ability to override a remote hunter's shot, some fear that such technology is dangerous to humans [source: Animal Protection Institute].

One thing is fairly clear: Those in favor of Internet hunting, who deny that the practice is unsporting, will continue attempting to provide it. Mention has already been made of the possibility of an offshore game hunting preserve [source: Humane Society]. Whatever your views on Internet hunting, this is one practice to watch closely.