Texas Bans Remote Hunting

Popeye, do you care to explain this one?

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3124895

April 8, 2005, 1:42PM



Texas bans hunting over Internet
Associated Press

AUSTIN - Internet hunting season is over in Texas - perhaps permanently.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously Thursday to ban
remote hunting for game animals. The new regulation requires that anyone
hunting a game animal or bird be physically present and in control of the
firearm.

The Legislature also is considering a law that would prohibit the killing of
any animal when the shooter is not physically present.

Both moves are in response to an operation run by John Lockwood of San
Antonio, who has developed a rifle equipped with a camera that can be
controlled via the Internet. He has said customers are using his Web site
for target shooting and that he planned to offer hunts for live animals.

The new parks and wildlife regulation does not apply to non-game animals,
such as exotics. Lockwood said Thursday that he plans to conduct a hunt for
an exotic black buck antelope this weekend for an out-of-state disabled
hunter.

"It's still legal. I'm going to do it," Lockwood said. A disabled Ohio
hunter, who bought a Texas hunting license on the Internet, will pull the
trigger on the antelope.

Lockwood said he was disappointed by the Parks and Wildlife Commission vote
as well as the legislative action that appears imminent.

"It's not going to hurt me financially at all," Lockwood said. "The business
venture for me is the target shooting and that won't be affected. It's the
disabled shooters and the soldiers overseas who want to hunt and can't do it
(except by computer), who'll be hurt?"

Game wardens have been worried about enforcement problems that could result
from remote hunting. State law requires that a hunter have a license in his
or her possession and that game animals be tagged immediately after the
kill. That would be impossible for a hunter firing a rifle from a remote
computer.

Parks and Wildlife Department officials also cited ethical concerns about
remote hunting.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 01:26:13 GMT, "Chris" <chrpai@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Popeye, do you care to explain this one?
>
>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3124895
>
>April 8, 2005, 1:42PM
>
>
>
>Texas bans hunting over Internet
>Associated Press
>
>AUSTIN - Internet hunting season is over in Texas - perhaps permanently.
>
>The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously Thursday to ban
>remote hunting for game animals. The new regulation requires that anyone
>hunting a game animal or bird be physically present and in control of the
>firearm.
>
>The Legislature also is considering a law that would prohibit the killing of
>any animal when the shooter is not physically present.
>
>Both moves are in response to an operation run by John Lockwood of San
>Antonio, who has developed a rifle equipped with a camera that can be
>controlled via the Internet. He has said customers are using his Web site
>for target shooting and that he planned to offer hunts for live animals.

I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be
infringed" part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable.

JF


I've learned that life is tough, but I'm tougher.
But I've also learned that under everyone's hard
shell is someone who wants to be appreciated and loved.

"Chris" <chrpai@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:VaG5e.68$gI3.23@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

> Popeye, do you care to explain this one?

What's to explain (especially to you)?

You are taking the cheap shots from the cheap seats.

Using a computer. All you anonymous and shit slinging liars use the computer
for cover.

You wouldn't run your suck, and sling your slimy innuendo to him or me, but
you'll do it from behind a monitor.

But that's OK.

"JOF" wrote in message news:04ge519hohaergf9j4nua9s5fikdcjq0l8@4ax.com...
> I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be
> infringed" part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable.

Damn... And who said the Canuks couldn't learn?

"Grumman-581" <grumman###@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vcI5e.22696$Vx1.22081@attbi_s01...
> "JOF" wrote in message news:04ge519hohaergf9j4nua9s5fikdcjq0l8@4ax.com...
>> I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be
>> infringed" part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable.
>
> Damn... And who said the Canuks couldn't learn?
>
>

Monkey see....monkey do...

"Rudy Benner" <rudy.benner@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:115elno539rooea@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Grumman-581" <grumman###@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vcI5e.22696$Vx1.22081@attbi_s01...
> > "JOF" wrote in message
news:04ge519hohaergf9j4nua9s5fikdcjq0l8@4ax.com...
> >> I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be
> >> infringed" part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable.
> >
> > Damn... And who said the Canuks couldn't learn?
> >
> >
>
> Monkey see....monkey do...

Kinda like the ones who shit in their hands and sling it on the crowd
watching?

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> "Chris" <chrpai@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Popeye, do you care to explain this one?

> >Texas bans hunting over Internet
> >Associated Press
> >
> >AUSTIN - Internet hunting season is over in Texas - perhaps permanently.
> >
> >The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously Thursday to ban
> >remote hunting for game animals. The new regulation requires that anyone
> >hunting a game animal or bird be physically present and in control of the
> >firearm.
> >
> >The Legislature also is considering a law that would prohibit the killing
of
> >any animal when the shooter is not physically present.
> >
> >Both moves are in response to an operation run by John Lockwood of San
> >Antonio, who has developed a rifle equipped with a camera that can be
> >controlled via the Internet. He has said customers are using his Web site
> >for target shooting and that he planned to offer hunts for live animals.
>
>
> I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be
> infringed" part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable.
>
> JF

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> "JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> > I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be
> > infringed" part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable.
>
> So much for your "reasonable" position.


"I try to couch my comments in neutrality. I try to remain
dispassionate. Reason fails when passion rules, or something like
that." -JOF
=====

"and most of us have learned that to
survive in this world we need to be open minded and willing to learn
new things. I'm just trying to survive." _JOF
=====

"In rec.scuba terms I think I'm pretty darned neutral."
-JOF
======

>> >> > That "neutrality" thing needs a bit of polish.
>> >>
>> >> In rec.scuba terms I think I'm pretty darned neutral.
>> >
>> > That "neutrality" thing needs a bit of polish.
>>
>> To bring it up to rec.scuba standards? 8)
>
> To actually be doing what you, yourself, describe.

That one whooshed me.
-JOF
======

"It was a reference to some earlier comments of yours where you made
erroneous assumptions based on what you thought I meant to say."
-JOF
======

>> >> Frankly, most of our livelier discussions are exercises in endurance
>> >> only, as few here seem prepared to move off their chosen party line
>> >> regardless of how compelling the counter arguments might be.
>> >
>> > That would include you, of course.
>>
>> I think I'm fairly open minded. I have conceded points in the past,
>> but most of the time concessions are seen only as signs of weakness
>> and the beginning of a total collapse, and nothing short of total
>> capitulation is worth acknowledging. No "common middle ground"
>> nonsense for hard core rec.scuba debaters. It's strictly all or
>> nothing. That makes most of our discussions exercises in semantics
>> only, but sometimes interesting all the same.
>
> Like I said, that would include you, of course.

No. I'm open to rational argument. -JOF
======

> At any rate, it was clear what you said, in a snobbish and insulting
>manor.

You guys are too sensitive. I wasn't saying anything like that, just
defending my own point of view.-JOF
======

>> Perhaps you'd get more sympathy for your cause if you stopped
>> referring to anyone who doesn't come out wholeheartedly in defense of
>> absolute gun freedom as a "gungrabber".
>
>Pure hyperbole.

Hyperbole is exaggeration.-JOF

"I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be infringed"
part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable."
======

> It's your right to arbitrarily place everyone who doesn't love guns in
> the gungrabber category? What about the people who simply don't care?
> Are they your enemies too? -JOF

As far as we can tell.

You've never weighed in at that position, however. -Popeye
======




--
One million Marines cannot seize Tarawa in a thousand years.
Admiral Keiji Shibasaki, 4 days before his death.

"JOF" wrote

>>Both moves are in response to an operation run by John Lockwood of San
>>Antonio, who has developed a rifle equipped with a camera that can be
>>controlled via the Internet. He has said customers are using his Web site
>>for target shooting and that he planned to offer hunts for live animals.
>
> I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be
> infringed" part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable.

I don't believe those words are used in conjunction with "killing."

Do you have a problem with remote hunting? If somebody that can not travel
to Texas, legally obtains a hunting license from Texas and kills an animal
that he would legally be allowed to shoot if he were physically present,
does that create more of a problem for you than the hunter that is
physically present?

Lee

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:WyR5e.10$AV3.33@news.uswest.net...
> "JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:f3lf519bi9r3nnott6fc666ppnujopma45@4ax.com...
>
> > Seems to me that using a remotely operated killing device isn't very
> > sporting, but then one could say the same about some of the other
> > weapons and methods used in hunting today. I'd like to see some of our
> > great white hunter types go up against a Kodiak, or even a little
> > bitty Grizzly, mano a mano, or even armed with knives. Methinks many
> > of our fine camo-bedecked hunters' cojones would shrivel to peas and
> > their feet would be blistered from the pace they set scootin' in
> > retreat. But that's another story.
>
> Wow.
>
> So, does anyone that doesn't live exactly like you have your permission to
> do anything?
>
> It must be awful lonely up there in your ivory tower.

John's entitled to his opinion.

It's just when he points fingers at others, and call -them- opinionated,
that makes me laugh.

He's just as opinionated as anyone here.

And certainly, as we've verrrry clearly seen, less than open minded.

You're not arrogant John, you think you're aloof.

And you're -knee deep- in it, like the rest of us.


--
One million Marines cannot seize Tarawa in a thousand years.
Admiral Keiji Shibasaki, 4 days before his death.

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 05:33:37 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote:

Good cites, and if taken in their roiginal context, accurate on my
part.
>
> "I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be infringed"
>part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable."

Which part was incorrect? Are you suggesting it is less than sacred
and somehow open to interpretation? Was the "shall not be infringed"
part supposed to go on to say "except in the case of remotely
controlled weapons" or "other than for weapons too heinous for
civilized man"?

Arguably we need to take the hunting part out of the equation in any
case. I believe the real issue here is that if such a gun exists, then
the govt will have it, and of course already does, only bigger and
better. Ergo, a "well-regulated" militia better get some of those
puppies because we need protection form our own govts. According to
what we've been told here a well-regulated militia means everyman, so
this should become a pretty hot item for personal armament.

I'm picturing such a weapon mounted on every pickup truck roof, and
the owner armed only with a PDA containing a high res lcd and
controlling software and mebbe even a little bitty joystick. As long
as the owner stayed within range of the transceiver he'd be safe. 8)

>> It's your right to arbitrarily place everyone who doesn't love guns in
>> the gungrabber category? What about the people who simply don't care?
>> Are they your enemies too? -JOF
>
> As far as we can tell.
>
> You've never weighed in at that position, however. -Popeye

I missed one? Sheesh!

JF

I've learned that life is tough, but I'm tougher.
But I've also learned that under everyone's hard
shell is someone who wants to be appreciated and loved.