I suppose this is just like the remotely controlled robots U.S. soldiers are now deploying in Iraq.
California to ban hunting over Internet (Wednesday, May 4, 2005 CNN.COM)
The article concerns a ban being placed by California against using a Texas-based web-site that allows remotely controlled "hunting".
A bill passed by the state Senate two weeks ago would prohibit use of computer-assisted hunting sites and ban the import or export of any animal killed using computer-assisted hunting. The measure now moves to the state Assembly.
Whenever there's a new technology there's a range of possible reactions. One of which is to reject it outright simply because it's "different". These people can be called "Luddites" after the movement in the early Industrial Revolution which attacked machines that made clothing due to the loss of jobs in the clothing-making industry.
In this case I don't see that kind of knee-jerk rejection phenomenon. As the article says:
Groups including the California Sportsmen's Association, Safari Club International and the Outdoor Sportsman's Coalition of California support the ban, saying hunting over the Internet is unethical and unsporting.
I tend to agree. What value there is in hunting lies in the contest between man and animal. The more technology that is put in the grasp of human hands, the more it interferes with the purity of that contest. Even the use of guns interferes by making it easier to kill the animals.
Consider ... hunting is often seen as a "Man's Sport", and the act of hunting makes one Manly. Setting aside the obvious gender inequality in that ... what they mean is for hunting to bring out courage and strength of character. Obviously courage and strength of character is possible for Women just as it is for Men. My point here is to question just how "Manly" (building of character strength) it is to "hunt" using technology whether it be high powered guns, maybe with telescopic sights, or whether it be to remotely operate a webcam and gun?