The uproar over online hunting has far outpaced its actual practice. It would appear that there's only been one such site in the US, which wasn't even up for very long in 2004, but the push to put laws in place that ban internet hunting has remained strong. The WSJ has caught on, noting that lobbyists led by the Humane Society are still convincing legislators that legally enshrined bans are needed. Thirty-three states now have bans on the practice (up from 25 back in February), and Congress is considering a national ban -- despite the fact that nobody's doing it. One state rep in Delaware asserts that online hunting "would have the potential to make terrorism easier," though it would appear the reporter didn't ask her to explain exactly why, and that she doesn't "want to give ideas to people." So, instead, she's sponsored a bill drawing attention to an activity that nobody's really bothering with anyway. Makes perfect sense. Furthermore, one of the Congressional sponsors of the nationwide ban said he'd never heard of internet hunting until the Humane Society brought it to his attention. He says he wondered "who would do something like this?" As it turns out, nobody, really.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/103526.shtml

Well, it never caught on because many states jumped on the BAN wagon. Thank god.
Pro-Active vs. Re-Active.


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0129.htm

Stupid is the word you're looking for. Its more animal rights industry bull$hit. It helps with their cash flow though.

Lets think of everything possible that we don't like or could go wrong and make a law to ban it even though its not reality.