Activists' Drone Shot Out of the Sky For Fourth Time 733
garymortimer writes "Photos provided by the animal rights group show the multicopter smoking on the ground, with its lithium polymer battery supply smoldering. Another photo shows the drone's video camera smashed. The drone, dubbed 'Angel,' was a Cinestar 8 octocopter estimated at $4,000. This wasn't the first time SHARK has been shot out of the sky. This is the fourth drone that the group has lost while investigating pigeon shootings. One drone landed on club property, and is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit."
Over private property? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you fly a drone over my land, ill shoot it down too. Its an invasion of my privacy and borderline trespassing.
Re:Over private property? (Score:4, Insightful)
its not even borderline trespassing, your property includes the space above your property
Re:Over private property? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Over private property? (Score:5, Informative)
No, check out Air Rights [wikipedia.org].
Beat me to it.
Essentially, a property owner/renter "owns" the airspace up to about 500-ft (150m).
And no, that doesn't mean you can take pot-shots at passenger aircraft. Unmanned drones I would think are another story.
Re:Over private property? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is about the maximum range of a shotgun.
Re:Over private property? (Score:5, Informative)
"a property owner/renter "owns" the airspace up to about 500-ft (150m)." Which is about the maximum range of a shotgun.
For slugs/sabot rounds, yea, about 150 yards is max range.
For birdshot (the type of ammo you'd typically see in a pigeon hunt), you're looking at more like 40-60 yards.
Re:Over private property? (Score:4, Informative)
For slugs/sabot rounds, yea, about 150 yards is max range.
Well, the effective range of birdshot depends on the type. #6 will go further than #20.
What I find interesting about that figure is that the old tradition of defining 'national waters' was historically been the max range of the shore cannons of the day.
Thus, defining 'personal air space' as the max range of common arms* that a homeowner might have seems pretty traditional.
*Well, common shotguns which won't have a horribly dangerous projectile coming down, potentially miles away. Even a rifled slug doesn't have that range.
Re: (Score:3)
While dove hunting I've been stung by birdshot several times. Some people never look where they are shooting. I thumped one guy up side the head and he went home. Not bad after that. I have a two strikes rule.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They need to require them to kill a doe for every buck they kill. These trophy hunters only want big bucks with a huge rack and so the deer are still way overpopulated. I dodged two the other night that tried their best to run into my car.
Re:Over private property? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What if you miss? What's downrange? (a window and a child?)
For suburban deer overpopulation's I'd say spotlights and machetes would be kind of sporting. Can you imagine the reaction of the Bambi morons?
Re:Over private property? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's obvious that a 747 flying at 30,000 ft isn't trespassing... but it also seems obvious that somone on a hovercreaft skimming along a couple inches above the ground is. A drone weaving through your trees "feels" like tresspassing, but maybe one a couple hundred feet up wouldn't be?
It does bring up an interesting question about where the distinction lies, what altitude is considered "public" vs "private"?
Of course if the drone is camera equipped (almost guaranteed) you may be able to skip tresspassing rules and use peeping tom type laws against it at almost any altitude if it's filming parts of your property that would otherwise be private...
Re:Over private property? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Over private property? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about the US, but in the UK the regulations are very specific: Feral pigeons are a pest species, to be destroyed by any lawful means; this includes destruction of eggs/nests, preventive measures on building overhangs against roosting birds (pigeons are by nature cliff dwellers), and shooting them. If a pigeon is on your land (owner or tenant) or you have the authorisation by the landowner to be on his land with a firearm of whatever description covered by whatever ticket necessary (air rifles over 12fpe and pistols over 6fpe require a class 1 firearms ticket, those below require no licence whatsoever), and you have the means to destroy it with a clean shot you're pretty much obliged by Law to do precisely that.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it isn't, but some bastard took photos of my property and sold them to google.
FAA Regulations Apply (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the FAA altitude regulations:
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes;
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2.000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas.
An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft. The reason? The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure. Further, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility in the application of many FAA provisions.
drone is more like a model plane than an aircraft (Score:3, Interesting)
What are the FAA and other rules, if any, regarding model airplanes and other unmanned flying machines?
Re:FAA Regulations Apply (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Skilled helicopter pilots routinely practice autogyro landings to stay sharp. The best I've known could drive a construction marker spike into the ground with his skid while autogyroing (again to stay sharp). Granting he was a retired helicopter test pilot.
The deadmans curve is altitude _or_ forward motion. If you have ether you can autogyro.
You have complete control when autogyroing, what you don't have is a second shot. Just like gliding in a fixed wing.
Re: (Score:3)
hint: google auto-rotation
ps: the tail rotor is used to counter the torque produced by the engine spinning the rotors. No engine power, no tail rotor power required (helicopters don't need to point in the direction you want them to go)
If one of t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not a lawyer.
In Florida v. Riley, the US Supreme Court found it was permissible for a police officer to observe inside a greenhouse through the open roof from a helicopter circling the property at 400ft.
The court said that helicopters are not bound by the lower limits of the navigable airspace allowed to other aircraft and that any member of the public could legally have been flying over the property at that time.
I think a lot of weight was given to the fact it was lawful in the jurisdiction for the off
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to grow marijuana in a greenhouse outside your home, you should probable consult a lawyer first.
You: "Is it OK to grow marijuana in a greenhouse outside my home?"
Lawyer: "No, it isn't".
If anyone was considering doing this, I thought I'd save you the trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
If the 747 is flying at 1000 feet, probably, and you can almost certainly sue them for something.
There's ceilings where it becomes a common resource. Public airspace. But depending on your jursidiction, you do "own" up to a certain altitude over your land. Of course, it depends on where you are, and the type of land contract you have. Most of us don't own what's under our land, for example.
Re:Over private property? (Score:4, Funny)
If the 747 is flying at 1000 feet, probably, and you can almost certainly sue them for something.
its America. Of course you can sue them for *something*
Re: (Score:3)
At the same time, the hunters may have criminal liability too... depending on the specific of where they were shooting.
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand the club is not responsible if something (or someone) maliciously trespasses, crosses the marked safety line and enters the target area.
The shooters at any range are required to stop firing if they observe a non-target object at the range. However a helicopter can be easily mistaken for a game bird, especially if those birds were intentiona
Carousel (Score:3)
Renew! Renew! Renew!
Re:Over private property? (Score:5, Insightful)
at any altitude?
what about public airspace?
Re:Over private property? (Score:4, Informative)
In 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which declared that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was a public highway, open to all citizens. Navigable air space was defined as the sky above "the minimum safe altitudes of flight" as determined by federal regulators — typically 500 to 1,000 feet above the ground.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This assumes people are travelling and not spying.
California IIRC has passed laws about helicopters hanging around stars' houses, or tried to anyway.
Re:Over private property? (Score:5, Insightful)
at any altitude? what about public airspace?
This issue is well-established in law. Ever seen those balloon rides or events? They tend to land on private property. In fact, it's pretty much inevitable. You know what happens? Nothing. The police don't show up. The land owner doesn't shoot the balloons out of the sky. Strangely, people seem to act civilized (shocking, I know). On occasion, the balloon chase vehicle and pilot need to pay for property damage, because they do land in crop fields from time to time, but this is well-understood by all parties to be the cost of doing business -- hand shakes resolve these issues more than lawsuits.
Then you have animal rights activists. They take a position not supported by law (pidgeon shoots are legal) and then fly a loud mini-copter with surveillance gear over an area filled with dozens to hundreds of sharpshooters who disagree with their position. And they then acted shocked and dismayed when their toys get shot down and the police do nothing. News flash: The police don't have to investigate any crime. They have broad discretion. Know why? Because your neighbors dropping the bass at 2am may not be as important as the shots fired call four blocks away. And just about everything is more important than some inflammatory political activists pissing off their neighbors on purpose to try and make something that's legal now illegal tomorrow. If I'm a police officer, I'm going to be dragging my ass responding to any call you make, if I respond at all... because you're being a nuisance. This is like insulting the girl hanging off Mike Tyson's arm. Dude, you're gonna lose.
Dropping the bass? MORE animal abuse? (Score:5, Funny)
>> your neighbors dropping the bass at 2am
Isn't that animal abuse too?
Re: (Score:3)
>Isn't that animal abuse too?
Only if the neighbors survive the first shots you fire.
Re:Over private property? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is spying on somebody who is obeying the law supposed to help make the activity illegal? Shouldn't they be spending all that time writing their congresscritters? Of course, the answer is "no", because what they are trying to do is paint the shooters in a bad light. Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke... Wham "Ow mommy, he hit me!" Then post a slashdot article and presto! Instant support for your position.
Re: (Score:3)
How is spying on somebody who is obeying the law supposed to help make the activity illegal?
Apparently by showing how inhumane a turkey shoot is (figuratively).
Shouldn't they be spending all that time writing their congresscritters?
It's not for you or I to judge how a person chooses to excercise their first amendment freedoms.
. Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke... Wham "Ow mommy, he hit me!" Then post a slashdot article and presto! Instant support for your position.
A review of the comments so far seems to suggest very little support either for their political position or their method of surveillance. Perhaps they believe negative publicity is still better than no publicity.
Re: (Score:3)
Traditionally a balloon pilot carried a cold bottle of a nice sparkling wine to give to the landowner. Ballooning started in France, so I'd guess that was to keep the landowner from surrendering after being invaded by air.
The fact that balloon owners tend to pay for damages (as they are usually loaded and have a valuable balloon they need to get off the land) keeps lawsuits down. I'd be surprised if they didn't happen anyhow. They have some control of where they land, but shit happens. I've seen them hun
Re: (Score:3)
On occasion, the balloon chase vehicle and pilot need to pay for property damage, because they do land in crop fields from time to time, but this is well-understood by all parties to be the cost of doing business -- hand shakes resolve these issues more than lawsuits.
I've heard, although it may not be true, that the origin of the term "buying the farm" was from the early days of aviation when emergency landings in farmer's fields were common. Aviators were naturally expected to pay for the damages. If they crashed, they would be figuratively causing enough damage to need to "buy the farm". Posthumously, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not so much that they unilaterally ignore it, it's that every police department has limited resources with which to respond to any collection of situations. They implicitly have to choose between sending officers to investigate a downed hunter-heckling drone versus responding to car accidents, domestic abuse, or even traffic violations. Which do you think they are likely to feel is a better use of their limited resources?
In effect, wolf-cryers get ignored. It's not due to a policy decision to do so, b
Precedent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right from the FAA (and seeing how this "drone" is setup, I'd have to guess it would fall under the Helicopter section)
This is the FAR
If you're interested, shown below is Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119 of the
General Operating and Flight Rules which specifically prohibits low-flying aircraft.
91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the
following altitudes;
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power uni
hunting? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you eat the animals...that's a pretty damn good reason for killing it.
When was the last time you ate a live animal?
Re: (Score:2)
It says "pigeon shootings" above... do people actually eat those flying rats? WTF?
Re:hunting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hunting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also aren't pidgins a real nuisance in some cities that they try and exterminate them?
Re: (Score:3)
It says "pigeon shootings" above... do people actually eat those flying rats? WTF?
Beats eatin' crow [wikipedia.org]
sounds delicious (Score:3)
I'm trying to convince my co-worker to let me take some that has invaded his shed. He lives way out in the country, I'd absolutely eat a pigeon that has been eating seeds and bugs. I wouldn't eat the city birds that eat garbage and live in over populated disease filled roosts.
Re:hunting? (Score:5, Insightful)
EVERYTHING is tasty wrapped in bacon and fried in butter.
Re:hunting? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:hunting? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not eating them. From TFA:
The Philadelphia Enquirer reported that SHARK lobbied the Pennsylvania statehouse in January, seeking legislation that would end pigeon shooting in the state. These hunting events involve capturing or breeding pigeons in cages, and releasing a large number of birds from cages to immediately be shot or wounded by hunters.
Pigeon shooting opponents contend that these events violate animal cruelty laws, and SHARK has used aerial footage obtained from drones to strengthen that argument.
“the predictable outrage generated by gruesome videos showing captive pigeons getting released from wooden crates, attempting to fly away, only to get blasted within seconds by a shooter who’s apparently only a few yards away, reinforces both the ethical stance and the financial status of animal activists who want to ban not just canned hunting but much of animal agriculture,” read an editorial in the Drovers CattleNetwork, a beef industry news periodical.
Honestly, I'm not a fan of the practice on practical grounds (what if the pigeon gets away? you're adding to the pest pigeon population, since these are bred, not captured), but I'd say that if it's private property, drones like this deserve to be shot down.
Re:hunting? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, when they are eatten they are called "squab". But, I've heard they are delicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squab_(food) [wikipedia.org]
Sort of like how we call cooked cow "Beef", cooked pig "Pork" , and cooked deer "Venision".
Re:hunting? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:hunting? (Score:5, Funny)
I ate a chicken once.. Tastes like frog legs
Re:hunting? (Score:5, Informative)
WHAT?!?!!
Dude, I used to raise chickens. They eat pretty much anything. Worms, snails, bugs, small children, and yes, some grain - you name it, chickens will eat it.
If you are eating 'free range' chickens, then they are eating everything in sight. Caged chickens eat mostly grain, but that is not their natural diet. They get grain to make them fat.
Re: (Score:3)
Pigeons are rats with wings. I used to kick pigeons. Those flying shitboxes.
Re: (Score:3)
First Big Bird, now Bert? (Score:2)
>> This is the fourth drone that the group has lost while investigating pigeon shootings
Bert, is that you?
You'd Think They'd Learn (Score:5, Insightful)
Need I remind the tree-huggers that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results? Or maybe they're getting the exact result they really want - lots of publicity for the low, low price of $4000 a pop.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they're scientists [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (Score:4, Funny)
Indeed. It kinda reminds me of this [glossynews.com].
Dangerous practice (Score:5, Interesting)
AMA code [modelaircraft.org]
If any of the PETA people doing this are AMA members, I hope they have their memberships revoked...
Re: (Score:3)
I think they need to invest in a drone that can fire back. Problem solved.
Problem solved, indeed, when the 'activists' get 10-15 in the clink for attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, trespassing, vandalism, etc., etc.
You need to learn a bit more about firearms (Score:5, Informative)
Birds are not shot with rifles, they are shot with shotguns, also sometimes called scatter guns. These are smooth bore weapons, no rifling, that can fire out "shot" which is a collection of small pellets. How small varies depending on the shot load. For bird hunting "birdshot" is used. The largest would be about 4mm though that is rarely used, more commonly it is around 2.5mm. The purpose of this is threefold:
1) To increase the area of effect. Point shooting a small, moving, target is very hard. Shot spreads out and thus provides a wider hitbox. It makes it far easier.
2) To decrease damage to the target. A high powered rifle round could annihilate much of a bird, rendering any meat one might get useless (remember this was all developed back when it was hunting for sustenance). Light shot causes shallower wounds.
3) Safety. So long as the gun is fired above the horizon, it is of no danger. The shot is metal spheres, and thus cannot maintain a ballistic trajectory. Due to their small size, they are very subject to friction and lose their kinetic energy quickly. When they fall to the ground, they are not dangerous.
So no, there will be no problems with someone missing and hitting a neighbour. For a bullet to be dangerous over long distances it needs to be fired from a rifled weapon. The spin stabilizes it and allows it to maintain a ballistic trajectory and thus its energy even over very long distance. Thus when fired at an upward angle it could indeed fly for a long time and hit with lethal force.
For all those reasons, you'll see something like this done with 12ga shotguns loaded with #6-8 birdshot, not a 7.62x51mm rifle loaded with BTHP rounds.
Re:You need to learn a bit more about firearms (Score:5, Funny)
It's a reporter. They don't know which end of the gun is the business end. Remember the press reported that the Aurora shooter used an "AK-47" when in fact it was an AR-15 variant.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/journalists_firearms_identification_guide/ [outsidethebeltway.com]
That chart is not too far off.
Learn a bit about hunting... (Score:5, Informative)
Bit of advice: When shooting at targets in the air, hunters generally use a shotgun, IE a smoothbore firearm loaded with little balls of lead or bismuth* alloys. In any case, shotguns loaded with shot are hazardous for far shorter distances, which is why you're allowed to fire them into the air.
Given that they were hunting pigeons, shooting at the drone with a rifle would require the 'dipshit' to go back to his vehicle or building and retrieve a rifle, and it's a tough shot.
It's far more likely many of the hunters 'donated' a shot or two at the drone with their pigeon guns. Pigeons relatively small birds, a commonly recommended size [chuckhawks.com] is #7.5. As Dick Cheney [apfn.org] so ably demonstrated while hunting quail using the same #7.5 shot you'd expect for pigeon, you can easily survive being shot in the face with it merely 30 yards away.
Given the way the protestors tend to operate, I can fully believe them going 'closer! closer! to the point that the drone ends up within easy range** even for short range shot. Then it's just a matter of a 'lucky hit', which isn't hard when each shot is tossing ~250 pellets at the target.
*Less enivornmentally hazardous than lead.
**With this type of shot, it's more a question of penetration at range than the hitting itself. If they're not doing enough damage, I'd imagine that a few might of had some shells loaded with larger pellets, perhaps #4-5, which would have more energy out that far, at the expense of fewer balls.
Re: (Score:3)
A squirrel-long helicopter would be not easy to hit at 150 yards with a rifle even if the helicopter is sitting still on the ground. You'd need the rifle set up for this distance, with a known round, and with correct adjustment of the scope. You'd need a tripod, if not a bench vise. Hunters take varmints like that in 200-300 yards, but not always with one shot, and not without carefully zeroing the scope. Hitting the helicopter in the battery with a single shot from a standing position, with no support, sh
Re: (Score:3)
Sure the pigeon shooters seems like a bunch of idiots. I support there right to be idiots with animals they own as long as it's not animal cruelty which it does not seem to be. I oppose people thinking it's OK to take video and photo's of an area with a presumption of privacy. I'm ok with them shooting it down but I also ok with shooting an apparently of age peeping tom.
Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (Score:4, Insightful)
since it's not clear when to apply it, vs. "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."
I don't see any contradiction between the two. If at first you don't succeed, try again, but don't continue trying to do exactly the same thing. There has to be some variable involved that gives you reason to think your next attempt may be different than what has come before. If the variable is your skill or ability, then repeated attempts may ultimately lead to success, so try again. Even if there's just an element of randomness which assures different outcomes, and the degree of possible variation is sufficient that some trial may have success, then persistence makes sense. But if it's clear that there are no variables capable of significantly changing the outcome then it's absolutely true that expecting a different result is a useful definition of "insanity", in the sense of a disconnection from reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Usually, the odds of success in a random process, and whether there are variables capable of significantly changing the outcome, are the exact things you don't get to know in advance. I am talking about complex issues like raising a troubled child, or what to do about the Iraq war in 2006, or whether repeated drone-shootdowns a the gun club are swaying public opinion. The Einstein
Re: (Score:3)
I think the hunters are expecting-- and getting-- the same result every time they shoot the drone.
wait... what? (Score:5, Funny)
They're using drones to investigate people that are good at shooting things that are flying in the air - seriously?
Re:wait... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are actually using the drones to harass the hunters by scaring the birds they are hunting.
The drones are just a tactic to disrupt the hunters. These things should be shot down, and the idiots that keep sending them in should be arrested and thrown in jail.
Re:wait... what? (Score:4, Informative)
The drones are just a tactic to disrupt the hunters.
"Hunters" should be in quotes everywhere it's used in relation to this article. These people are as about as much of a "hunter" as a clay pigeon shooter is. It's kind of pathetic, really.
--Jeremy
Re:wait... what? (Score:5, Informative)
"Do you have a citation for that?"
He doesn't, but I do:
[animallaw.info]
Re:FCC may not allow it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you follow PETA's actions very closely but the legality of other peoples actions has no bearing on whether PETA harasses them.
Re: (Score:3)
If PETA is using these tactics to catch these hunter's in the act, I would assume that whatever the hunters are doing is already illegal.
First, its not PETA, and even if it were thats a terrible assumption to make. What PETA wants has no correlation with what is legal and in many cases no correlation with what is sane.
Plus, the article seems to indicate that what they are doing is NOT illegal. This group (SHARK) simply doesnt like it.
What type of shot? Was it birdshot? (Score:2)
Were standard rounds shot into the sky?
Re:What type of shot? Was it birdshot? (Score:5, Funny)
Were standard rounds shot into the sky?
What makes you think the shooters would need anything more than birdshot for a flying bit of ABS plastic, nylon, and a lithium battery and a couple of PCB boards? If you could hit it, a single BB or pellet from a decent-quality air rifle or a "wrist-rocket"-type slingshot could take one of those quad-rotor R/C models out.
If the hunters were smart, they'd get themselves a net-gun and capture these things mostly intact, then sell them on Ebay to finance more live pigeon shoots while loudly and publicly crediting this animal rights group for helping sponsor them.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
The best weapon to take down an object of that size at that distance would be a 12 gauge with a choke and birdshot. That's exactly what they used. A rifle would be stupid... hard to hit a flying target and do less damage.
Spying on neighbors is illegal (Score:4, Informative)
Pull!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
From reading TFA I don't know what they're complaining about - they were able to make a nuisance of themsleves over private property for most of the day. That it took so long for the drone to be shot down tends to indicate that otherwise the antics of the drone operators are not having that much of an impact and they are desperate to get their aircraft shot down for the publicity.
Once an activist group get themselves a contrived title, they think they're a supreme deity....
investigating pigeon shootings (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:investigating pigeon shootings (Score:5, Insightful)
Pigeons, also known as rock doves or rock pigeons, are classified as a pest species, not a game species, and can be shot year-round.
What exactly are they complaining about. Sounds like lawful activity to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:investigating pigeon shootings (Score:5, Informative)
The 'hunters', and I use that word loosely, seem to be growing pigeons in cages and releasing them from crates, whereupon they are shot by people standing a few yards away. 'Canned hunting' they call it. Idiot rednecks I call it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
(i am a hunter, but i also ENJOY the hunt, and i EAT what i shoot), I can see why they do it.
If you're a hunter you are probably aware of the many rules and reglations surrounding hunting, to make sure that animals don't suffer unneccesarily. For example hereabouts you can't use a triple hook to foul hook a freshwater fish, you can't bowhunt deer, and so on. Likewise you can't privately breed dogs to tear each other apart in private pit fights on your private property. If you do, you'll be arrested and imprisoned, and rightly so.
I mean what, aren't there enough wild pigeons to hunt? Are they too ch
Re: (Score:3)
Why waste ammo/time shooting the drone.
Umm, they're already out there "wasting" ammo and time shooting pigeons. The drone is just a free (and probably quite satisfying) target. It's probably much easier to hit than the pigeons, BUT you get to watch the bird's-eye video on the Internet later.
Someone else will just fly another one.
Another free target!
There is only one way to win, don't be the pigeon! (Score:3)
So who's bright idea was it to choose a robot flying thing as the weapon of choice against a bunch of rednecks with guns who enjoy shooting at flying things... hey if we send up enough robots they will eventually run out of ammo and have to leave the pigeons alone!
As the Cat from Red Dwarf would say... I know this game, its called gun and pigeon, and there is only one way to win... don't be the pigeon... well unless you believe those lying cartoons.
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since it's clear nobody RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
“the predictable outrage generated by gruesome videos showing captive pigeons getting released from wooden crates, attempting to fly away, only to get blasted within seconds by a shooter who’s apparently only a few yards away, reinforces both the ethical stance and the financial status of animal activists who want to ban not just canned hunting but much of animal agriculture,” read an editorial in the Drovers CattleNetwork, a beef industry news periodical."
In other words, they're not killing pests. They are doing absolutely nothing to improve the environment. They are purposely breeding these birds in captivity, then releasing and redmisting them, for the sole purpose of their own entertainment.
I'm sorry, but these arn't hunters. They're 5 year olds in grown up redneck bodies who are too stupid to figure out the controls on an X-Box.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but many of the birds are captured.
Re: (Score:3)
You know what, I absolutely agree.
But what they are doing is still perfectly legal, and the idiots that are harassing them are even bigger idiots than they are. Flying a surveillance drone over private property, knowing that the owner is armed and does not consent, is dumb. Crying about it when they inevitably and properly blow your stupid drone out of the air is great though. It would serve Steve Hindi right if they shot him instead of his toy. Not that I would encourage
Re: (Score:3)
Without commenting on the activity, I'll give my experience with this... When I was on the farm, groups of guys used to some around with giant nets and ask to capture all the pigeons in our barn. Theyd hang the net from the roof and spook the birds, causing them to fly across the barn into the net and be captured. We always let them, as it saved us the trouble of poisoning the disease infested things before they crapped all over everything.
Anyway, the hunters said they used the birds to train their dogs f
Uh, right. (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA
>âoeSHARK used the drone to successfully videotape illegal animal abuse committed at the pigeon shoot for nearly the entire day,â
No they didn't.
Pigeon shooting is legal.
http://bensalem.patch.com/articles/da-dismisses-pigeon-shoot-citations [patch.com]
And good luck getting pigeon shooting banned in PA, or any other kind of shooting and hunting. The first day of deer season is a state holiday, for instance.
--
BMO
When is it OK to be a peeping tom? (Score:4)
If I fly a drone in my neighbor girl's backyard who likes to sunbathe in the nude is that OK? Oh wait, that is obviously private property and makes me a peeping tom. Hmmm, can I fly a drone over the fence into a nudist colony then and take pictures there? Hmm... still seems wrong huh? Is it not wrong if everyone had clothes on? I mean, until I started trespassing I didn't know one way or the other.
People like this group disgust me. Likely as much as anyone who eats meat disgusts this rabid group of vegan hippies who have nothing better to do then attempt to dictate to some hunters that they shouldn't kill a bunch of rats with wings. What also disgusts me is that anyone would farm grow such vermin (outside of medical testing), but that is another discussion entirely.
Re:When is it OK to be a peeping tom? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really support them. I just don't care about the pigeons. I do care about their right to privacy, and do see the operators of the UAV to be antagonistic trespassers. Perhaps you don't like privacy, or perhaps believe violating privacy is OK when used against a minority you do not like. Which is it Falconhell?
The Sheriff COULD Add Insult to Injury... (Score:3)
In TFA, they are complaining that the sheriff isn't doing anything about their $4000 drone getting shot down.
Maybe the officers are being generous, and considering $4000 in damage a painful enough lesson. After all, they *could* just arrest them for interfering with a legal hunt. [animallaw.info]
Skill (Score:3, Interesting)
Lost in the discussion of legality and ethics is a simple question: what kind of pussy needs pigeons released from a box at short range to score a kill? Why not just shoot them in the box and call yourself an accomplished sportsman?