They Shoot Jackalopes, Don't They?
Nick Gillespie | August 10, 2007, 9:39am
The Wall Street Journal is reporting on the move to ban the dread menace of "Internet hunting," a setup in which hunters use webcams and computer mouses to pull the trigger on unsuspecting prey. The call for a ban--spearheaded by a Humane Society direct-mail campaign--has been hugely successful. Over 30 states have banned the practice.
There's only one catch, but it's kind of important: Internet hunting doesn't, er, actually exist. Not even for jackalopes:
But nobody actually hunts animals over the Internet. Although the concept -- first broached publicly by a Texas entrepreneur in 2004 -- is technically feasible, it hasn't caught on. How so many states have nonetheless come to ban the practice is a testament to public alarm over Internet threats and the gilded life of legislation that nobody opposes.
With no Internet hunters to defend the sport, the Humane Society's lobbying campaign has been hugely successful -- a welcome change for an organization that has struggled to curtail actual boots-on-the-ground hunting. Michael Markarian, who has led the group's effort, calls it "one of the fastest paces of reform for any animal issue that we can remember seeing."
Here's an exchange that should make lawmakers (and voters) everywhere cringe:
[Melanie George] Marshall, the Delaware state representative, realizes that nobody is actually killing animals on the Internet, but thinks now is the time to act. "What if someone started one of these sites in the six months that we're not in session?" says Ms. Marshall. "We were able to proactively legislate for society."
That sentiment bothers a fellow representative, Gerald W. Hocker. Of 3,563 state legislators nationwide who have voted on Internet-hunting bans, Mr. Hocker is one of only 38 to oppose them. He co-sponsored an earlier version of Rep. Marshall's bill in 2005 but took his name off it after doing some research.
"Internet hunting would be wrong," he says. "But there's a lot that would be wrong, if it were happening."
More here (not sure if this is a non-subscriber link or not).
Mr. Nice Guy | August 10, 2007, 1:44pm | #
Cockfighting (just one state, but VA is pretty conservative on such things)
http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=6004654
Animal experimenting (many people will support it IF they think it leads to aiding people, but by itself a majority are against it, remember I said only that majorities find it troublesome, unlike some here who think it an easy question)
http://www.patientsvoice.org.uk/pages/opinion_polls/index.html
Horse meat/slaughter:
http://www.equineprotectionnetwork.com/saveamericashorses/polls.htm
I doubt majorities would be against veal or foie gras, but I did not say majorities were against them, only that majorities felt these to be morally problemattic issues.
Again, it's simplistic to think that a libertarian must be against any law passed because its a law and by nature is coercive. I don't know of any libertarians here who would decry laws prohibiting hunting, eating or experimenting on severly retarded people. Well, those people are not able to effectively enter a social contract and have reasoning and pain awareness comparable to a horse, dog or deer. If you can tell me why laws protecting that class are OK but humane laws are not, be my guest. And so SIV doesn't go into a retarded loop of his own, its no answer to say "because the humans are human" or "Locke said so." Yes, humans are indeed human (that insight never fails to amaze me) but of course the question is what characteristic does that human possess that the animal does not that warrants protection from inhumane treatment? I've never heard better than "cuz the Bible tells me so."
Mind you, for all the dullards out there (and I think thats a distinct though all too vocal minority of the regular posters), I'm of course not arguing that the severly retarded class used in the hypo above don't deserve protection. Of course they do, and how. But so do most animals that are comparable to them in morally relevant ways (ability to experience pain, some level of reasoning and autonomy, etc).
As to the connection between locals and national orgs: I actually volunteered for local Humane Societies for years, and yes they are connected to the national and state group that also does lobbying. We got literature from them, updates on legislation, and money went back and forth. Whether you find HSUS to be a "radical animal rights group" is a relative question, but its just a fact that they are not "as radical" as groups like PETA.
