Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Technology Build

Illinois Law Grounds PETA Drones Meant To Harass Hunters 370

Posted by samzenpus
from the air-scare dept.
schwit1 writes "Illinois passed a new state law that set back the efforts of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), making the use of drones to interfere with hunters and fishermen prohibited. The law was created in response to PETA's plan to employ drones called "air angels" to monitor outdoors enthusiasts engaged in hunting and fishing nationwide."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Illinois Law Grounds PETA Drones Meant To Harass Hunters

Comments Filter:
  • Land of the Free! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beh (4759) * on Thursday January 02, 2014 @08:09AM (#45844697)

    Strange - people fishing should be "free" to fish unmonitored... ...people hunting should be "free" to hunt unmonitored... ...people on the Internet should be "free" to be monitored at will...

    To me that sounds like future terrorist plots could best be discussed on a hunting trip, because you have the gun lobby ensuring that you'll be undisturbed...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02, 2014 @08:16AM (#45844735)

      Land of pirates: gratuitous "r" inserted. Was supposed to be "land of the fee".

      In the US, you are free if one of two categories applies:

      1) You have the money to pay people with the power to make you less free;

      2) Nobody is listening to you anyway. Lip service costs nothing.

      In fact, most people come under category 2 - and this is where dictatorships have all gone wrong: out of paranoia, they silence even the people who would do no harm if they could speak. The illusion of freedom is Western civilisation's greatest gift to human psychology.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Good. Peta are hypocritical arseholes. Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of.

      • by Wootery (1087023)

        Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of.

        How idiotic. Way to stand a well-reasoned stand, AC.

        • by JWW (79176) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @09:00AM (#45845025)

          I'm more in favor of not infringing on PETA's rights to harass hunters with drones. But I'm also in favor of the hunters destroying PETA's drones, especially if they are harassing the hunters on private land.

          Also depending on the level of harassment and monitoring, I am also in favor of the hunters and fisherman pressing charges against PETA.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward

            You're in favour of "free" speech that nobody listens to, destroying things with guns, and lawsuits.

            You, sir, are a Yank.

            • You on the other hand seems fond of the idea of making people listen by force your "free speech" they do not want to listen, right?
            • by Wootery (1087023)

              You're in favour of "free" speech that nobody listens to

              Free speech is only worth defending if there's a big audience, then?

              Reminder: there is no need to defend inoffensive, non-controversial speech.

              destroying things with guns

              Fair point, but it's not exactly a very nasty case of it.

              and lawsuits

              Well, rule of law. We're not talking about suing local authorities because you tripped over a curb.

              • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02, 2014 @10:10AM (#45845693)

                if this thing flies onto my property and interferes with a cull, then PETA has not only trespassed, but it is harming the very animals that it is trying to protect. Unless PETA expects vets to go into the woods and start neutering every woodchuck and deer in a thousand square miles, culls are the most effective way to deal with population explosions.

          • I think it'd be ok to destroy their drones on public lands too.

            • That was my first thought... and the hunters start taking down drones with buckshot in 3...2...

              In all seriousness though... that's what I would have done, is make it legal for hunters to shoot down drones at designated hunting/fishing sites. A $0.30 or even $2 round costs less than a few hundred for an AR Drone. Though would probably limit the ammo allowed to buckshot/snakeshot rounds.
          • I'm more in favor of not infringing on PETA's rights to harass hunters

            I wasnt aware that harassment was a protected action. I was more under the impression it was illegal.

            https://www.google.com/search?q=Harassment+statute [google.com]

      • by sycodon (149926) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @09:15AM (#45845169)

        It was so much fun to read about their drones being shot down and PETA's incredulous reactions to it.

      • by xenobyte (446878)

        Good. Peta are hypocritical arseholes. Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of.

        Well said. I agree 100%!

      • by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @10:44AM (#45846071)

        Good. Peta are hypocritical arseholes. Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of.

        I actually happen to think that a large asteroid colliding with Earth doesn't sound like a good idea.

      • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @11:12AM (#45846355)
        I find them hilarious. One year an activist trespassed on school property wearing a large fish costume and handing out flyers equating fishing to murder. It was a particularly hot day and eventually he succumbed to heat exhaustion and flopped around like a trout before the paramedics arrived. I wish I can find the link to the local news cast.
    • The thought of hunters being harassed by PETA drones brings to mind the the immortal words of King Louis XVI who said... "Pull!"
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by bluefoxlucid (723572)
      I always use a shotgun when I'm fishing.
    • Well no one likes competition and there are plenty of people already watching everything, as you point out. Of course they will use the courts to regulate away competition just like they do in every other field.
    • Re:Land of the Free! (Score:5, Informative)

      by LWATCDR (28044) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @08:44AM (#45844917) Homepage Journal

      Wow that is the most confused reply I think I have ever seen.
      "Strange - people fishing should be "free" to fish unmonitored... ...people hunting should be "free" to hunt unmonitored... ...people on the Internet should be "free" to be monitored at will...

      To me that sounds like future terrorist plots could best be discussed on a hunting trip, because you have the gun lobby ensuring that you'll be undisturbed..."

      First so do you think that people should be allowed to take part in totally legal activity without out harassment? If so what does the monitoring of internet meta data have to do with anything?
      Second do you understand that these drones are often flown over private property without consent? Yes aircraft can fly over private property but they must do so at a safe altitude which is 1000 feet from any obstacle within 2000 ft of the aircraft. In none congested areas it is down to 500 ft of altitude and no closer than 500 ft from any person, vehicle or obstacle. So you can fly any lower than a 50 story building.
      The rules for flying a radio controlled aircraft have been around for at least 50 years and those are. The big rules are you must be in VISUAL contact with the aircraft at all times and you do not fly over people. You also do not fly over private property without permission.
      So PETA was already breaking safety regulations with these operations and should be stopped before they hurt someone. BTW I do not fish, hunt, or have a gun. I do fly RC aircraft.

    • by Firethorn (177587)

      People fishing and hunting are already monitored by law enforcement - Game Wardens. PETA types aren't law enforcement and they deliberately don't just 'monitor' hunters - they deliberately use their loud RC aircraft to harass people and spook wildlife in an attempt to spoil their hunts. Though personally I'd love it if I could arrange for them to scare game TOWARDS me, which would allow me to then thank them for making my hunt easier...

      • by rwise2112 (648849) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @09:09AM (#45845113)

        deliberately use their loud RC aircraft to harass people and spook wildlife

        Spooking wildlife with an aircraft is already illegal according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

      • they deliberately use their loud RC aircraft to harass people

        I think that is the essential part of this issue . . . should people be allowed to use drones to harass other people for anything that they don't like? Hey, look, there's a Catholic Church . . . there's probably a priest raping an altar boy in there. If I launch my fleet of drones, and get all "Ride of the Valkyrie", maybe I will distract the priest from his "Chocolate-Star Fudge-Pack-ula."

        Heaven forbid that the Westboro Baptist Church learn how to fly drones.

        We'll end up with an escalating "Battle of B

    • by nharmon (97591)

      You know how I can tell you've not done any real fishing or hunting in your life? Because you believe if PETA can't "monitor" sportsmen, that sportsmen will not be monitored. But in reality, wildlife and natural resources officers constantly monitor sportsmen.

      But please, don't let facts get in the way of you bashing the gun lobby.

    • Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.
  • by blocsync (320897) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @08:18AM (#45844745) Homepage

    Do I need a license to go drone hunting? or is it just open season? because that sounds like fun! Also, I believe shooting drones stays well within PETAs goals as I wouldn't be shooting animals :)

  • by capebretonsux (758684) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @08:19AM (#45844753)
    They're the next gen of skeets!
  • by rmdingler (1955220) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @08:32AM (#45844827)
    And even if it did, you've exceeded the daily limit.
  • _you_ can't monitor the hunters and fishers but the NSA can. They don't have to listen to laws.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, these off-topic NSA references sure don't get tiring. Keep 'em coming. We all admire your fresh and on-topic humour. I'm sure somewhere around here Fouad is laughing at your cleverness [memegenerator.net].
  • Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Murdoch5 (1563847) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @08:45AM (#45844921)
    PETA is not a group that anyone should frankly support. PETA is known for terrorist threats and actions against humans and large scale property destruction for the job of destroying animal hospitals and humane societies. PETA makes large statements about how animals have the right to attack humans and will verbally and publicly bash victims of hunting accidents where the animal attacks. PETA should be shut down by the government, they are a nonprofit society that seeks to punish humans with no clear case, cause or rational. Anything PETA seeks to do is to purely hurt humans for the sake of animals, what logical society would do that? If you think I'm blowing smoke:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4D1godY4vI [youtube.com]
    • by qwijibo (101731)
      http://vault.fbi.gov/People%20for%20the%20Ethical%20Treatment%20of%20Animals%20(PETA) [fbi.gov]

      The government takes a long time to do anything, even longer when the target has a lot of political support, even if they are openly advocating murder and other terrorist acts.
    • OK, accepted. Now let me troll you back. Ostensibly, PETA's aim is

      "PETA aims to collect video footage of any illegal activity, including drinking while in the possession of a firearm; using spotlights, feed lures, and other forbidden hunting tricks; and maiming animals and failing to pursue them."

      Which, on its face, sounds good. If a game warden saw you doing any of those things, you'd be in deep trouble. You're clearly a hunter or know a few, ever know someone to have a few beers at lunch and head ba

      • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @09:14AM (#45845161)

        You're clearly a hunter or know a few, ever know someone to have a few beers at lunch and head back out? Or gawdawful hungover?

        Nope, never met one. Course, the hunters I know are the strict "no alcohol Christian" types.

        How about baiting? Ever see the old "Warning! Deer eating this corn will be shot!" gag sign?

        Nope, never met one. Course, the hunters I know are mostly farmers.

        BLOCKQUOTE> And now to the one that bugs me the most: as a target (only) archer, I don't know how many really terrible "archers" I've seen hanging around the shop/range bragging about "yeah, I hit him, but then lost the blood trail after an hour...".Bow hunters injuring and maiming animals is just a dirty little secret of the sport.

        Where I come from, those guys are known as "liars". That's what you say when you miss.

        BLOCKQUOTE>Of course, rifle/slug hunters always go for the heart/lung shot, because all they care about is the head. If they were hunting for meat, they'd go for the head shot, where you get either a clean kill or a clean miss.

        Umm, no. Only an idiot goes for a headshot. And the hunters I know hunt for meat, not for trophies. And still aim for center-of-mass, just like you're taught in any marksmanship course.

      • Heart/lung is a fairly clean kill and leaves most of the meat, When your subsistence hunting you go for the most probable kill that leave a usable carcass ammo and time are not free. Now that it's not critical to bag one and it's as much about curbing pop growth and keeping the skill set primarily head shots at a distance, but I've never taken a trophy either.

      • by Murdoch5 (1563847)
        Fair enough, but with PETA it is never innocent actions. I've heard and watched PETA speeches where the talker will state and defined horrific acts upon humans because animals are put down. I think they really want to watch hunters because they want to bring unfair action down on them.
    • >> PETA is known for terrorist threats and actions against humans

      Also their stupid PETA bread always sticks together in the middle and then rips in two when you try to open it up. Fuck you and your stupid terror bread, PETA!

  • by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @08:54AM (#45844981) Journal
    A state government outlawed the use of drones by a private group to harass and/or spy on a group or class of citizens. This can be the basis to extend the law to be against against the use of drones by private individuals, corporations, and businesses to harass, spy, and advertise.

    BTW, those who are comparing PETA to the NSA and other government agencies are making a false comparison. PETA is a private organization that would be violating the privacy and personal freedom of people. They are not a governmental agency and most of the governmental agencies in the comments so far do not fall under the jurisdiction of state governments.
    • by Rinisari (521266)

      I think it's a bit of an extension to say that this law does anything more than extend harassment laws to specifically prohibit use of a drone to harass someone.

      While you and I may consider advertisements to often be harassing, a court may not!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Does PETA have a working solution for maintaining a sustainable population of game? Like some type of birth control or are they happy with uncontrolled heards getting bigger and bigger and expanding? Times have changed, there is no longer a natural balance of various wildlife to maintain populations in check. Until some other method of control comes around, PETA has no chance of stopping hunting. Hunting is beneficial in many areas, that is why there are a set number if hunting licenses and specific tim

    • by spitzak (4019)

      PETA does propose a solution: reintroduction of natural predators. Probably not an actual working solution but they are nowhere near as ignorant as you state.

  • I call it "target practice"!

  • It seems this is more a topic for the FAA vs the state of Illinois. I do recall there being something in FAA FAR's about operation of a drone by commercial entities and that operation requiring a COA for the drone and pilot training.

    The very least they could be reported to the FAA for unsafe operation of aerial vehicles.

    For an idea google Trappy of Team Black Sheep. http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25471/the-faas-complaint-against-trappy/ [suasnews.com]
  • by DroneWhatever (3482785) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @09:50AM (#45845495)
    I fly quad-copters as a hobby. The drone they are selling for $324 is the Parrot Drone AR 2.0. They are basically ripping off their own members, badly, and that drone is the suck anyway. People are going to buy this thing, thinking it will be easy to fly, the video and stills will be garbage. They will never be able to get close enough (165ft range) to the hunters or fishermen to actually use the drone without interfering, and the video will not even be close to good enough to distinguish a beer in someones hand. They would need something like a DJI Phantom2 or the Blade 350qx to even begin to get in the territory of monitoring anything. The blade is over $500 with tax, the DJI is over $1000. Anyone that flies heli's or quads for more than a week knows this is a ROF Laughable joke from the start.
  • by WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @10:59AM (#45846219)

    Yeah what PETA doesn't want to understand is all those animals they think they're going to stop hunters from hunting are going to die of starvation or be torn to shreds by predators if they're not hunted by humans.

    The fact is , animals in the wild are going to die horrifying deaths, each of them. It's called "over population" and "predator-prey balance" and hunting seasons are just those season where the predator to prey balance has swung strongly in one direction, meaning there's a lot of prey that's just doomed to violent deaths. This is how uncontested nature operates on populations, and it's ugly.

    Death by hunter is neither cruel nor unusual by the measure of what else is available. Some kinds of traps are both cruel and unusual and in fact society BANS those traps, so society actually DOES care about the suffering of animals, suffering which in no way effects any member of society personally, why? because absent other forces, we're just humane, that's all.

    It's hard to imagine the amount of growing up people in PETA just haven't done. It entails knowing avoiding learning anything about ecology yet thinking that your personal perception of how it can or ought to be practiced should reign over all established science and expertise.

    Frankly, it's disgusting and immoral.

  • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Thursday January 02, 2014 @11:20AM (#45846447)

    As long as I can still use a drone to monitor activity on my own property during hunting season. It would make it safer to look for trespassers and call the sheriff by eliminating the possibility of being "mistaken" for a deer and shot.

    Not against hunting, just against hunters shooting on my property.

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Working...