This time it's not Big Brother, but Crazy Cat Lady!
This time it's not Big Brother, but Crazy Cat Lady!
Gee, I wonder how many of those will end up peppered with holes.
I wonder what state will be the first to offer drone hunting permits?
In reply to HappyAndy:
A town in colorado already did it for the publicity...
Hey, if the hunters are doing illegal stuff, and this saves game commission officers some time, I see no problem. Too many shady hunters bag game in very unethical "cheating" ways that deprives someone else hunting legally of the ability to get a deer, turkey, pheasant, etc. I HATE poachers. Not because they kill deer outside of season, but because they take the opportunity away from someone else.
But doing it just to lecture someone about how wrong hunting is...that's just annoying.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Gee, I wonder how many of those will end up peppered with holes.
Or how many more people will be killed by falling bullets from attempts to shoot at them...
In reply to PHeller: while I don't condone poaching or other illegal hunting practices, fanatics have no business acting as citizen law enforcers (in any scenario). Also, when I heard about this on the radio the other day, the PITA representative made it quite clear that their intent was not just anti-poaching, and not just observations, but intervention.
I'm not fan of PETA, but if the chicks in the link want to do the whole naked in a cage publicity stunt, I'm all for it.
HappyAndy wrote: In reply to PHeller: while I don't condone poaching or other illegal hunting practices, fanatics have no business acting as citizen law enforcers (in any scenario).
Why does one group of citizens have less of a right to exercise their rights than another? Why is feeling strongly about something bad?
I'm not a fan of PETA but don't think restricting someone for associating with them is a good idea. Stuff more like this is a good idea:
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/g144yr/seaworld-of-pain
The look on the PETA rep's face when Wyatt Cenac drops the n-bomb on her is priceless. For real.
I already get lots of film/video/pictures of facilities and people doing illegal things. Can't do much with the pictures/films/videos because I cannot certify they are correct or accurate or unaltered. So, legally, it's a wasted effort.
As a hunter, I'm not too worried. Generally a hunter isn't where a drone can fly. At the most, they can be a noisy nuisance while walking across a field into the woods. They can't fly long, and hunting takes time. So one could possibly follow me for a few minutes, out in the open, then have to fly off to be recharged.
Many states already have anti-harassment laws protecting hunters from this.
The claim of abandon deer left to die is overstated in my opinion and experience, but this has much to do with laws protecting privacy rights of land owners actually. For while I can track a wounded animal, I am not legally allowed to trespass onto anyones land while doing so without their written permission. Many of us will quietly do so anyhow, in order to dispatch the animal, mostly for food reasons, but also for ethical reasons. However, if a land owner objects, the law is on their side actually.
plus
equals
dculberson wrote: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/g144yr/seaworld-of-pain The look on the PETA rep's face when Wyatt Cenac drops the n-bomb on her is priceless. For real.
hahaha
PHeller wrote: Hey, if the hunters are doing illegal stuff, and this saves game commission officers some time, I see no problem. Too many shady hunters bag game in very unethical "cheating" ways that deprives someone else hunting legally of the ability to get a deer, turkey, pheasant, etc. I HATE poachers. Not because they kill deer outside of season, but because they take the opportunity away from someone else. But doing it just to lecture someone about how wrong hunting is...that's just annoying.
That is naive.
PETA's goal has nothing to do with capturing footage of people doing illegal things. Especially, since the footage might not even be legal.
Their goal is stopping hunters. In this case, specifically bow hunters. Read the article carefully.
Those RC's have no cameras on them, and they are not flying in public airspace (so, they are trespassing).
They are trying to make NOISE. LOTS of it.
Scare away the wildlife, and you won't have to worry about the bow hunters.
It is a completely deceptive ploy.
I wonder if they can be charged with illegal hunting if they scare wildlife into oncoming traffic?? That would be humorous.
SVreX wrote: Those RC's have no cameras on them, and they are not flying in public airspace (so, they are trespassing).
??? As far as I know there is no concept of "private airspace" in America. There's restricted airspace around certain facilities but you do not own the airspace above your land.
Also, from the article linked:
"The footage can be streamed live via the Internet, uploaded to the Air Angels page on PETA.org, and delivered to game wardens in order to apprehend and prosecute offenders.
Read more: http://www.peta.org/blog/hunters-watch-out-petas-drones-are-flying/#ixzz394AmU7Pw"
They do have cameras. Else there would be no "footage."
I'll just leave this here in case, you know, anyone happens to need it.
BTW - a gas engined RC plane of that size travels between 30 and 40 mph in level flight. The expensive stuff is the engine and the electronics (which are located in a compartment about 6 to 10 inches behind the base of the engine) in case, you know, anyone needed that information. Fuel is usually stored in a compartment between then engine and the electronics. Fuel should not, under any circumstances, be dispensed at high speed onto the hot muffler of the engine or a rather spectacular "comet like" display may occur.
Personally, I'd never destroy anyone else's property, at least on public land. If, however, someone chooses to intentionally trespass on my property, or property where I know they aren't welcome, they may experience a sudden, irreversible "loss of signal" with their little toy.
In reply to kazoospec:
These look to be electric. Try to hit the LiPo battery pack for similar results.
dculberson wrote:SVreX wrote: Those RC's have no cameras on them, and they are not flying in public airspace (so, they are trespassing).??? As far as I know there is no concept of "private airspace" in America. There's restricted airspace around certain facilities but you do not own the airspace above your land. Also, from the article linked: "The footage can be streamed live via the Internet, uploaded to the Air Angels page on PETA.org, and delivered to game wardens in order to apprehend and prosecute offenders. Read more: http://www.peta.org/blog/hunters-watch-out-petas-drones-are-flying/#ixzz394AmU7Pw" They do have cameras. Else there would be no "footage."
My dog begs to differ. He barks at the blimp every time it goes over our yard and stops as soon as it's out.
In reply to SVreX:
This.....they aren't drones either.
There is a reason PETA is viewed as an ecoterrorist organization.
And I would happily drop one of those flying over my property any time. If the camera still worked I'd set it up in front of a campfire, skin a cuddly little rabbit in front of it, then cook a tasty snack. All in an effort to politely say "berkeley You"
dculberson wrote:SVreX wrote: Those RC's have no cameras on them, and they are not flying in public airspace (so, they are trespassing).??? As far as I know there is no concept of "private airspace" in America. There's restricted airspace around certain facilities but you do not own the airspace above your land. Also, from the article linked: "The footage can be streamed live via the Internet, uploaded to the Air Angels page on PETA.org, and delivered to game wardens in order to apprehend and prosecute offenders. Read more: http://www.peta.org/blog/hunters-watch-out-petas-drones-are-flying/#ixzz394AmU7Pw" They do have cameras. Else there would be no "footage."
Umm.. They haven't shown you any footage. They've TALKED about the POTENTIAL.
I read the article too.
Look at the pics and video. Those RC planes and copters don't have cameras mounted.
They are trying to get people to do stuff, without showing evidence that THEY have done something illegal.
And yes, the Supreme Court has upheld property owner's right to airspace, at least to an elevation of about 80'. You are trespassing if you are in that space.
Even higher than that if it lingers for extended amounts of time. Parasailers here have learned that the hard way.
The Federal Aviation Regulations state 500 feet from people in uncongested areas. If I see one in range over my land I shall open fire with every available shotgun.
Minimum Safe Altitudes -14 CFR 91.119 Congested Area At least 1,000 feet above highest obstacle within 2,000 feet of the aircraft UncongestedArea At least 500 feet above the surface, and no closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure
SVreX wrote: Umm.. They haven't shown you any footage. They've TALKED about the POTENTIAL. I read the article too. Look at the pics and video. Those RC planes and copters don't have cameras mounted. They are trying to get people to do stuff, without showing evidence that THEY have done something illegal.
Gotcha, yeah, they list the drone and talk about recording and posting footage but don't mention anything about specs. Weird.
pilotbraden wrote: The Federal Aviation Regulations state 500 feet from people in uncongested areas. If I see one in range over my land I shall open fire with every available shotgun. Minimum Safe Altitudes -14 CFR 91.119 Congested Area At least 1,000 feet above highest obstacle within 2,000 feet of the aircraft UncongestedArea At least 500 feet above the surface, and no closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure
Sure, it's for safety reasons that they want to keep aircraft away from people, but that's full size aircraft. While I am sympathetic with wanting to keep drones off your land and agree with that sentiment, firing a gun into the air isn't the best, safest, or most legal way to deal with it.
I wonder if it's easy and legal to jam r/c signals and what the common frequencies are? You wouldn't make it fall out of the sky but you would gain the drone once its batteries died and it fell out of the sky.
pilotbraden wrote: The Federal Aviation Regulations state 500 feet from people in uncongested areas. If I see one in range over my land I shall open fire with every available shotgun.
I will capture them for my own nefarious purposes. I like playing around with flying things but the good ones are $$.
dculberson wrote: While I am sympathetic with wanting to keep drones off your land and agree with that sentiment, firing a gun into the air isn't the best, safest, or most legal way to deal with it.
It works perfectly on ducks, quail and other delicious flying objects. It is, in fact, the best, safe, legal way to obtain ducks and quail.
dculberson wrote: I wonder if it's easy and legal to jam r/c signals and what the common frequencies are? You wouldn't make it fall out of the sky but you would gain the drone once its batteries died and it fell out of the sky.
Jamming radio frequencies is against FCC law. Playing with toys running the same frequencies is legal.
You'll need to log in to post.
