Apparently the next big outrage after “canned” hunting are proposals to allow hunting over the Internet.
One John Underwood gained his 15 minutes of fame by claiming he was going to allow point-and-click hunting on his Texas ranch. Interested parties would pay a fee, log on, and presumably begin firing away remotely.
Frankly, the whole thing sounds like a bit of a hoax, but many people were outraged nonetheless. Lets assume it wasn’t a hoax — what is the big deal?
Assuming all Texas wildlife laws as far as permits, etc., are being followed how is it any more objectionable to log in to a website to kill an animal than it is to log on to a site like Fairbury Steaks and have parts of an animal carcass delivered to you overnight?
Its fascinating that most people seem to have no problem with either a) people taking guns and heading off into the woods and killing animals or, alternately, raising animals on farms to be slaughtered, or b) people buying carefully packaged animal flesh in pleasantly decorated supermarkets, but if you somehow start to blend the two, by combining hunting with the amenities and convenience of supermarkets, suddenly people cry to the heavens about the unjustness of it all.
And there’s inconsistency there as well. If its so horrible to hunt an animal in a confined space or do it remotely over the Internet, why aren’t most people regularly horrified at being able to simply select a lobster at a store or restaurant? Shouldn’t they demand that shoppers and diners give the lobster a “sporting” chance?
Source:
Point click and shoot. Lynda Gledhill, San Francisco Chronicle, March 10, 2005.