Technology Taking Away the Sport in Hunting

Krystyn Davis

5/11/10

Billy Middleton

The evolution of technology in the weaponry in America has shaped the deer hunting community into what it is today. Many deer hunters could argue that technology has improved the sport and made it more fun and easy for everyone. However, others believe that the advanced technology used in hunting today has caused it to be too easy and has taken away from the sport aspect of it altogether. I agree with the latter argument. I believe that today’s technology has led deer hunting to become too easy. A sport that was once only practiced by those who had athletic ability and stamina now can be practiced by nearly anyone of any age or size.

In prehistoric times, hunters used weapons that were made with little more than sticks and stones. They might have used spears or bows and arrows of some kind to kill their prey. This would have taken a lot of special talent because the hunter would have most likely had to track down the deer and get somewhat close to it to be able to penetrate the deer with the spear or arrow. However, the gun, which is the weaponry that is most commonly used today, has been advanced to the point where nearly anyone can use one to kill a deer. A hunter with a modern gun can shoot a deer from ridiculous distances. The following chart demonstrates the typical hunting rifle trajectory path of a bullet. As you can see from the chart, a typical rifle bullet can travel well over 100 to 200 yards. This means that a hunter can easily kill a deer at those distances with a modern rifle.

The fact that the modern gun has made hunting so much easier, to me also means that it is taking away from the sporting aspect of it. The fact that a person can sit in a shooting house and shoot a deer that is 200 yards away makes it far too easy to be considered a sport in my opinion. There is hardly any physical activity involved when this technology is used.

Another technology that has been developed is the hunting motion sensor camera. In more primitive times, hunters had to track deer, which required special skills and knowledge of the land, and the deer that they were hunting. They would have to adapt to their surroundings and learn how to find where the deer were on their own. Today, hunters can go out and buy a motion censor camera to put in areas of the woods where deer might be found. These cameras can not only take pictures of deer in that area, but can also record the date, time, and even temperature it was in which that photograph was taken. This gives an unfair advantage to the hunter because they can determine when the deer are most likely to come out in that area and can go hunting during that time. This technology clearly takes away from the sport in that it makes it too easy for the hunter to know when he or she can find the deer.

According to the article “Mouse Click Brings Home Thrill of the Hunt”, there has now been a technology developed in which a person can literally hunt from his or her home computer. They can log onto a web site, pay a certain amount of money, and kill deer or other types of animals in Texas from wherever they are by just the click of a mouse. The inventor of the website, John Lockwood, says that the main audience is people who are disabled or overseas. This seems like an acceptable idea to those who are disabled and would like to hunt. However, this creation is a slap in the face to those who do consider hunting a sport. The fact that a person can sit miles away in their computer chair and shoot a deer by clicking a mouse is incomprehensible to me. There is absolutely no physical activity involved when doing this other than clicking a button, and you don’t even have to be outdoors.

This technological invention, however amazing it may seem, is the last step in converting the sport of hunting into just another video game that anyone can play. In my opinion when anyone can do it, it should no longer be considered a sport. After all a sport is defined by dictionary.com as an athletic activity that requires skill or physical prowess. The fact that this type of technology requires neither skill nor physical prowess causes it to take hunting out of the sports category altogether.

The fact that all of these advances in hunting technologies has led to making the sport too easy has caused many hunters to try and somewhat evolve backwards. Many dedicated hunters use compound bows to hunt, and some use even more primitive bows called recurve bows, which are very similar to bows used by Native Americans. An image of a recurve bow and all of its parts can be seen below. Both of these bows are much more complicated to use than guns. The following video is a video demonstrating how to shoot a compound bow. As you can see from the video, there is much more to shooting a bow than there is to shooting a gun, which can easily be done by aiming and pulling the trigger.

Along with using more primitive weapons, the hard-core hunters prefer to pick out random areas to hunt in as opposed to hunting in secluded areas where they are assured deer. This also makes the hunt more difficult which in-turn adds to the sport. Also, many states in America are making bans on certain things such as using decoys. This also makes the hunt more challenging and even more enjoyable for some. Many dedicated hunters who hunt for sport alone do all of the previously mentioned actions to make the sport more difficult. They add to the physical and mental aspect of the sport by making it harder to find and kill the deer.

“Since the beginning of mankind, it was man vs. beast, up close and personal. Today, it seems to be technology vs. nature. We are distancing ourselves from our prey, literally.” The previous quote from the article “Mule Deer Watch: Bowhunting Big Mulies”, pretty much sums up my entire argument. The fact that technology has led to so much ease in hunting has gotten way out of hand. In today’s society, hunters can kill a deer with just the movement of one finger, and to me that is not what hunting is all about. I believe that we should do like some of the more dedicated hunters, and try and evolve backwards to bring back the sport that has somewhat slipped away due to our advanced technology. We should make hunting an actual sport again by making it more physical and primitive.

Works Cited

Burrell, Michael. “Mule Deer Watch: Bowhunting Big Mullies.”

Christensen’s Hunting Illustrated 05 Jul 2007: n. pag. Web. 9 May 2010. http://www.huntingillustrated.com/2007/07/05/mule-deer-watch-bowhunting-big-mulies/

Moreno, Sylvia. “Mouse Click Brings Home Thrill of the Hunt.”

Washington Post 08 May 2005, Web.

“How to Shoot a Compound Bow.” YouTube. Web. 9 May 2010.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClID7nCxfBQ

Cybersport: Going Against What a Sport Really Is

Krystyn Davis

Billy Middleton

4/7/10

In the article “Cybersport”, written by Dennis Hemphill, it is argued that videogames should be considered sports to some extent. He includes the evidence that videogames can reproduce the reality of sports by imitating their social and physical aspects through computer animated graphics and communication through the internet. However, I think that the mere fact that videogames only mimic these aspects of sports leads me to believe that they should definitely not be considered sports at all. In my opinion, sports are primarily based on face-to-face physical and social activity, and when videogames only mimic this activity it causes them to become the opposite of what my definition of a sport is, which is based entirely on physical and social activity. Eric Moody backs up my argument that technology does cause us to be less sociable which supports my main argument that the fact that videogames do not consist of face-to-face social interaction makes them the opposite of my definition of a sport. This argument leads to another proposal made by Moody, that by causing people to be less sociable, the internet, or in this case videogames, can actually harm a person’s psychological well-being. I also agree with this argument and think that it helps to prove my argument as to why videogames should not be considered sports.

According to www.dictionary.com, a sport is defined as, “an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc”. This definition emphasizes physical action/prowess, and the fact that video games either require little to almost no physical activity whatsoever goes against this definition and causes me to think of them as just a game or pastime and not a sport. Even though game consoles that allow you to somewhat control the game with your movements, such as the Wii, are available now they still do not require people to give as much physical exertion as the actual sport would give them. For example, I know from personal experience that when you play baseball on the Wii console you can sit on the couch and just swing your arm to hit or throw the ball. You do not have to run or even stand up for that matter when playing. You also do not even have to know how to hit or throw a ball in real life to be able to do it on the Wii.

The fact that you do not have to know how to hit or throw to play a baseball video game applies to any other game console as well. For example on the Playstation or X-Box consoles, which are controlled strictly by handheld controllers with buttons and joysticks, you would only have to hit a button or move the joystick a certain way to be able to hit or throw a ball. Examples of these controls can be found in the following link. Controlling instructions of MLB '09 The Show. This link shows how to control everything on the videogame “MLB ’09 The Show” on a Playstation 3 controller. A picture of the controller is shown below, and as you can see the controls could easily be done by anyone, and anyone could become good at this game after a little practice. However, in a real baseball game you would need special physical skills to be able to hit a ball coming at you at 90 mph or to throw a fastball at that same speed. The fact that video games do not require you to know how to perform any of the physical activity that would be required in a real game/sport causes me to disagree with Hemphill’s argument that video games should be considered sports.

Another reason I disagree with Hemphill’s argument is the fact that video games do not require face-to-face social interaction. Hemphill argues that video games do encourage social interaction when being played online with others. However, this type of interaction is not the same as face-to-face interaction that is a major aspect of sports. There have been many studies as to how playing sports can improve the social lives of people. Playing sports with other people face-to-face can improve ones social well-being by helping them make friends and actually interacting with other people in person. Video games cannot do this because, even though you can talk to other people online by using a headset, it is not the same as actually being with them and having face-to-face interaction with others. The following pictures help support this argument. The first picture shows kids playing soccer, socially interacting, and actually spending time with other people, whereas the second picture is showing a boy sitting by himself playing a video game. The fact that video games help to isolate you from other people can ultimately damage your social well being which could, in turn, damage your psychological well-being as well.

The same argument, that was mentioned previously, is made throughout the scientific paper “Internet Use and Its Relationship to loneliness”. The author, Eric Moody, does an experiment that concludes that excessive use of the internet can cause “negative effects on psychological well-being.” He also states that the negative effects of internet result from two factors which are the displacement of social activities and “strong ties”. I completely agree with these statements and believe that they can also apply to video games. I think that a person who plays video games excessively is much less likely to participate in social activities and to have strong ties with other people than a person who plays an actual sport with or against other people, and this loss of social interaction could definitely result in negative effects of a person’s psychological well-being.

The fact that Hemphill can argue that videogames are sports is very extreme to me. I believe that a sport is an activity that requires physical exertion as well as social interaction with others in a face-to-face manner. To me, the fact that videogames only simulate these actions would cause them to be excluded from the sport category. They require little to no physical activity and no face-to-face social interaction. Also, as Moody argues, the internet, or in this case videogames, can cause a person to become more dissociated from others. This could in turn lead to feeling left out, being unhappy, and other negative effects on their psychological health. This is the opposite of what I think real sports can do for an individual. I believe that a sport can broaden a person’s social life by introducing them to new people and places whereas a videogame could never do that. Therefore, by having a positive effect on their social well-being, sports would lead to a positive effect in their psychological/emotional well-being as well by helping them to feel accepted into a sports group or team.

Reading Log 3: Response to Internet Paper

Krystyn Davis

3/11/10

Billy Middleton

“Internet Use and Its Relationship to Loneliness” is a scientific paper written by Eric J. Moody. The paper reports the procedures and results of a scientific experiment that Moody and others conducted about how the Internet affects people’s social and emotional lives. Moody ultimately came to the conclusion that the Internet causes higher rates of emotional loneliness and lower rates of social loneliness.

Moody probably wrote this article to a wide audience. He could have written it for his colleagues and/or peers of psychology at the university he was attending in order to inform them of the psychological effects of the Internet on people. He could have also meant for the audience to be people who use the Internet frequently, to warn them of the effects it can have on their emotional well being.

As I mentioned earlier, this paper is in the format of a scientific report. It consists of the following subheadings/sections: summary, introduction, method, results, and discussion. The discussion and introduction sections have citations, and the results section includes the results of the actual experiment/survey he conducted. The fact that this paper has citations and actual numerical results/evidence makes the argument much more convincing because it is hard to argue with numbers and the fact that many other people might have agreed with Moody's hypothesis and opinions.

Overall, I agree mostly with the author when he argues that the Internet can cause emotional loneliness, because if you are all alone all of the time, even if you are talking to someone online, it is not the same as actually physically being with someone. You could be socially popular on the internet but hardly know anyone in the real world because you hardly ever get out of the house. However, even if I didn’t agree with Moody’s argument, the fact that he did this experiment/survey would help persuade me to agree with him because it is very hard to argue with the results of actual experiments and surveys.

Gunderson's Intended Audience

Krystyn Davis

Billy Middleton

2/29/10

After reading Gunderson’s review of Danger Mouse’s Grey Album for the first time I was left very puzzled. The article was full of very elaborate vocabulary, and it seemed very confusing altogether. However, after learning more about Gunderson and reading his article through a second time, I began to wonder why he would write it this way. Ultimately, I decided that Gunderson used a confusing composition and vocabulary to try and reach a more intellectual audience. By reaching this audience he could introduce and explain the mash up form of music as well as file sharing to them. He could also include his positive opinion on those topics within his article, as well as his negative opinion on copyright laws, which could ultimately be used to persuade the intellectual audience to agree with him. The author uses several methods or features within his article to show that it is meant for intellectuals.

One important aspect of Gunderson’s article is its design. The design of the article itself could easily mislead and confuse the average reader. When reading the introductory and closing lines of each paragraph, an average reader might be led to think that the author was against mash ups and file sharing. However, when you really pay attention to the article you can understand that he actually supports them both. I believe that Gunderson did this purposely because he was targeting intellectuals, such as students and professors, and he knew that when they read his article they would either just understand it more, or, like our class, they would need to analyze it in order to understand, discuss, and write about it. And, by analyzing and understanding the article it could give the reader a sense of accomplishment, which could, in turn, lead to their liking of the article. The fact that they liked the article could also lead to their fondness of Gunderson’s arguments and opinions.

Along with its design, the vocabulary of Gunderson’s article also shows that it is meant for intellectuals. By using words like vexingly, nadir, juxtaposition, and puerility throughout the article, Gunderson is excluding or possibly scaring away many ordinary readers because these are obviously not your average vocabulary words. This technique would probably assist in capturing the intellectual reader’s interest by making them seem like they are part of an exclusive group of individuals who can actually understand the language within the article. If they feel like the article was written for them in vocabulary that only they can understand, then that will make them want to read it even more.

Throughout the article Gunderson also makes very convincing points about why mash ups are good things. These instances could help persuade an intellectual because normally a person such as a professor would not be interested in this type of music. One specific example is when he talks about the idea that all music came from some form of music before it, and the fact that The Grey Album (Danger Mouse’s mash ups of the Beatles and Jay-Z) erases the thoughts of black and white and one artist being better than another (3). He basically says that The Grey Album erases all boundary lines, such as race and genre of music, and forms just music alone. This idea could draw the attention of an intellectual because even though they do not know a lot about mash ups, they can now see that they are part of a bigger picture that they can relate to. Another example of a mash up that erases these boundaries is The Sweet Home Country Grammer mash up below. This mash up clearly does this because normally most people who listen to Lynard Skynard (a country/rock and roll band) would never listen to Nelly or rap music at all for that matter, and those who listen to Nelly would most likely not enjoy country or rock and roll music. The fact that this mash up, like Danger Mouse’s Encore (Jay-Z and the Beatles), combines two different genres of music into one helps to erase boundary lines and create a form of entertainment anyone can enjoy.

Along with his opinions on mash ups, Gunderson also talks about how corporate businesses and production agencies take advantage of and abuse their property rights. I believe that by including this topic, he is targeting the attention of an intellectual audience because most average people probably already agree that copyright laws are too extreme and that file sharing should be legal. He uses Disney, Inc as a specific example by talking about how they “fought to extend copyright protections for reasons of “personal” profit” after Walt Disney had long been dead (2). I think Gunderson uses the argument that large corporations and wealthy individuals abuse property rights as a way to further persuade the intellectual reader as to why file sharing should be acceptable to some extent. The first video below is an ironic mash up of clips from disney movies used to explain copyright laws and how ridiculous they are. This video is ironic because it is made out of clips from the movies of the organization that Gunderson criticized, and it pretty much says the same things Gunderson says about copyright laws and how absurd they can be. The next video is of Michael Moore (director and producer of documentaries such as Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11) expressing his opinions on copyright law. His opinion is very similar to Gunderson’s about file sharing in that he also believes that it should be acceptable. I believe that Gunderson would agree with everything that Moore is saying in this video, and that this video, like Gunderson’s Disney example, would encourage an intellectual reader to agree with Gunderson on the issue because so many intellectuals probably know a lot about Moore and his work.

I believe that Gunderson deliberately wrote his article in a confusing manner to try and draw the attention of an intellectual audience. By doing this he could possibly gain their respect and convince them to agree with him about the topics he discussed throughout his article. I also think that by convincing them to believe that mash ups and file sharing are good things, and that copyright laws are too extreme, he could use them as prophets of his ideas. By having intellectuals like professors on his side, he could use them to teach his ideas to their students and colleagues, who could ultimately spread his opinion even further.

Reading Log 2: Response to the Danger Mouse Article

Krystyn Davis

Billy Middleton

2/18/10

I think that the author of the Danger Mouse article is arguing that mash-ups and file sharing should be acceptable in our society. I also think that he is arguing that corporate music producers are abusing copyright laws far too much and that mash-ups are doing society justice by going against this. However, this argument cannot be easily seen when reading the article only one time due to its confusing organization and vocabulary. The reader has to pay close attention to the article and probably even read it more than once to understand what Gunderson is trying to say.

One specific example in the article that shows this argument is the last paragraph. The author describes Danger Mouse as a cultural prophet because he threatens the music industry and producers by sharing music and creating mash-ups illegally. However, it was difficult to find very many specific examples that supported his argument, which was another reason why it was difficult to determine exactly what Gunderson’s argument was.

I think that by making his article very difficult to understand, Gunderson forces the reader to really think about what he is trying to argue. He is discussing a very controversial topic, and I think that by making the reader really pay attention to his article he is pushing his opinion into their head even more, which could possibly change their opinion on the topic of file sharing. Ultimately, if he was only targeting an intellectual audience, this way of writing could work. However, when writing about mash-ups/file sharing, he should probably target the average Joe as well, who is less likely to read this puzzling and complex article.

Also, while discussing the controversial topic of mash-ups and file sharing in his “supposed to be review”, Gunderson cites three very intellectual people. One was a philosopher, one a neurologist, one an economist and scholar, and one a psychotherapist and philosopher. I think that this clearly shows that he was writing from an intellectual point of view and his article is meant mainly for and intellectual audience. This clue along with the others can show us who he was writing this article to, as well as why he wrote this article.

Reading Log 1: Response to the Danger Mouse Article

Krystyn Davis

Billy Middleton

2/10/10

I believe that in the article, “Danger Mouse’s Grey Album, Mash-Ups, and the Age of Composition”, the author, Philip A. Gunderson is writing to a very intellectual audience. This article was probably meant for readers whom were professors or well educated people because of the elaborate vocabulary used throughout the article.

The author wrote this article saying it was a review of The Grey Album when it turned out to be that he was also reporting information, describing how some things worked within the file sharing community and within the corporate community, and even lightly expressing his opinion on the whole copyright/file sharing topic. I think that he did all of these things to try and introduce mash-ups and file sharing to more intellectual men and women because everyday average Joes already know a lot about them and probably already do them. By introducing this and trying to persuade the intellectuals that mash-ups and file sharing are both okay things to do, he seems to be trying to start a revolution. If he can get the upper class to support those things then maybe a trickle down effect will occur.

In the article the author also uses different types of media to try to make his writing more powerful. He uses subheadings and an image to try and help get his point across to the audience. For example, the first subheading is The Forces of Production (pg. 1). The fact that “forces” is italicized could indicate a lot to the reader. In my opinion, seeing the word “forces” emphasized tells me that he probably thinks of production companies in a negative manner because he could be implying that they are forceful or too powerful for their own good. However, this method of using subheadings could have also been simply for organizational purposes.

Overall, I do agree with much of what the author is saying in his article. I think that even though mash-ups are going against copyright laws, they are very interesting and unique forms of music that should be able to be enjoyed by the public. I also think that big corporations are taking advantage of the copyright laws and that people who make mash-ups are somewhat putting them in their place by making them.