Many western states are usually opposed to gun control legislation. But what do they say about Internet hunting? Let's look at Utah, for example. Utah is one of only seven states in the country without laws against cruelty to pets -- a nod to ranchers who fear that branding cattle may be affected by such a law. Yet, Utah has rushed to support legislation banning Internet hunting. Like other western states with a relatively small population, lots of available land and a tradition of hunting, Utah would be a likely spot for a hunting preserve to be used online. Even still, Utah residents want to keep that kind of hunting out of the state [source: McDonough].
Arguments in Favor of Internet Hunting
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.