Illinois Law Grounds PETA Drones Meant To Harass Hunters 370
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."
Land of the Free! (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Land of the Free! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:2, Insightful)
Good. Peta are hypocritical arseholes. Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of.
Re: (Score:3)
Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of.
How idiotic. Way to stand a well-reasoned stand, AC.
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
You're in favour of "free" speech that nobody listens to, destroying things with guns, and lawsuits.
You, sir, are a Yank.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they do, an issued permit means they have a legal right to kill animals within the confines of said permit.
PETA, on the other hand, does not have a legal right to harass people, especially on private land. If they want to change things, a sound arguement and political campaign is a better idea than publicity stunts and rhetoric. If states are actually legalizing weed, who knowns maybe hunting can be outlawed.
Something PETA completely fails to understand though, we have kind of killed off most of the natural predators. It is funny because I have heard PETA complain about this but never realize the implications. If the predators are gone, the prey doesn't stop breeding. Hunting permits are carefully issued to maintain wild population stocks. We already did the damage to the predators and now have to clean up our mess. If the wild predator populations climb back up to a level that can keep the prey levels in check, I would be happy reassess my positions. I don't actually like hunters, but my personal distaste with them and what they do doesn't mean they don't have a role to play.
Re: (Score:3)
Overpopulation is a terrible thing. Pennsylvania had a problem with deer over population in the '80's. Vast herds of malnourished, runt deer, seldom any larger than a German Shepard, many of which starved during the winter months. After seeing how terrible it could be, the game commission permitted more does to be killed. The herd grew stronger and healthier in short order.
Re: (Score:3)
PETA would be outraged at you saying nobody can kill any animals.
How would People Eating Tasty Animals (PETA) get it's tasty animals to eat?
Bumper sticker: I break fur animals.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it'd be ok to destroy their drones on public lands too.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Shooting Them Down (Score:4, Funny)
It was so much fun to read about their drones being shot down and PETA's incredulous reactions to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Peta are hypocritical arseholes. Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of.
Well said. I agree 100%!
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Brings back fond screen saver memories of Opus shooting down flying toasters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Land of the Free! (Score:5, Informative)
Wow that is the most confused reply I think I have ever seen. ...people hunting should be "free" to hunt unmonitored... ...people on the Internet should be "free" to be monitored at will...
"Strange - people fishing should be "free" to fish unmonitored...
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re:Land of the Free! (Score:4)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the freedom stop with hunting? Why shouldn't the freedoms that we enjoy also extend to flying drones?
To put it simply, your freedoms and use of them stop when they interfere with the exercising of my freedoms (and vice versa.)
Drones aren't silent. If there's a drone tracking me while I'm tracking game, it will scare the game away and prevent me from exercising my right to hunt.
Re:Land of the Free! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be fun! - Give them a taste of their own medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
On one side I don't like people who hunt for entertainment and on the other hand I don't like PETA. Can anyone suggest a solution that pisses both sides off?
Simply support maximum freedom. Let hunters use drones to stalk and harass PETA members. Let hunters field armed drones to disable or shoot down PETA drones, so long as the hunter pay for any property damage. Let hunters hunting on private land pursue legal remedies for trespassing if PETA drones fly over the property. PETA is backed by big money from limo liberals so they will be able to outspend your average hunter in the battle.
Incidentally, whether or not you "like" the way other people exercise the
Re: (Score:2)
Simply support maximum freedom. [..snip..] Incidentally, whether or not you "like" the way other people exercise their freedoms is irrelevant so long as it doesn't encroach on your freedom.
Winner of the thread.
Re: (Score:3)
On one side I don't like people who hunt for entertainment and on the other hand I don't like PETA. Can anyone suggest a solution that pisses both sides off?
Simply support maximum freedom. Let hunters use drones to stalk and harass PETA members. Let hunters field armed drones to disable or shoot down PETA drones, so long as the hunter pay for any property damage. Let hunters hunting on private land pursue legal remedies for trespassing if PETA drones fly over the property. PETA is backed by big money from limo liberals so they will be able to outspend your average hunter in the battle.
Incidentally, whether or not you "like" the way other people exercise their freedoms is irrelevant so long as it doesn't encroach on your freedom.
The concern that led to this was that while PETA says they just want to 'monitor', the fear is that they will actually use these drones to chase off game and/or harass the hunters, thus infringing on the hunters' freedom to hunt.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I am a little skeptical of the stated concern. There are plenty of other things that will scare off game that have not had laws passed against them such at driving ATVs round......
People, especially other hunters, do not drive ATV's around during the hunt for the explicit purpose of chasing off game, and if they did, they'd be breaking the law (at least in my state, it's a crime to intentionally interfere with conservation efforts, which include hunting).
Assholes following people with flying toy robots serves no purpose other than the explicit interference of the hunt.
I suspect...
You suspect, yet you provide no evidence; in other words, you've tossed aside the more realistic circumstance, and su
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I, for one, do not wish to be hunted by any animals, nor rodents for that matter.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you don't support the right to arm bears?
Re:Land of the Free! (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate people who assume most hunters hunt for sport. Every hunter I've ever known hunts for food.
Re:Land of the Free! (Score:4, Interesting)
Its a little of both (and I say that as an avid hunter).
I eat what I kill, and several deer in the freezer per year go a long ways in lowering how much meat I need to actually buy at the grocery store. Still, even hunting on a budget, the time commitment is still pretty steep. When you account for days when you see nothing and straight up scouting time, each deer taken is probably a 12-15 hour time commitment. With the idea that "time is money" I'm certainly not coming out ahead there, but I do actually enjoy the challenge and process of going out hunting, so it is indeed a recreational/sport activity as well.
I'd compare it to working a 2nd job - its pays a little but not much, but I enjoy it enough that I keep working.
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:5, Insightful)
So in a way, what this law has done is made it illegal for a group with a weak lobby to determine how badly a group with a strong lobby is breaking the law.
Sad thing is, I suspect the push behind this law is not coming from hunters but from private industry. There has been a lot of grumbling at how it is increasingly easy for local watchdog groups to catch environmental violations via drones after farms and factories spent so much time making sure the local police and regulators don't come looking, so there have been pushes to make such things illegal. Activists are a lot harder to pay off or threaten then local officials, so making it illegal for activists to aid in enforcing the law is a high priority for some.
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hunters have hunted for longer than this country has been around and now, all of a sudden, we need an adversarial group like PETA "monitoring" for compliance? Give me a break.
If PETA were a bit more rational (not counting on it), they might be welcomed to the table for constructive solutions to the problems they see.
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:4, Informative)
PETA has a long history of hunter harrassment with the purpose of preventing them from legally taking game. There is no reason to believe they only want to use drones to document violations of existing game laws, which are already usually well-enforced with draconian punishments.
Re: (Score:3)
PETA is not deploying the drones or harassing anyone. TFS is misleading.
PETA is selling the drones for people to be able to use to expose illegal hunting (like if someone sneaks onto your property)
http://www.petacatalog.com/homepersonalbeauty/airangelsdrone/ [petacatalog.com]
Do I need a license? (Score:5, Funny)
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 :)
Those aren't drones! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Except, wasn't Cheney on a staged hunt? I wouldn't call that bird "hunting" so much as.... using birds as targets.
Staged hunt? (Score:2)
I'm not aware that the hunt was 'staged' any more than the local farmer knows his land and that X birds tend to be in Y field and Z time of the year, and if you line up a bunch of people to walk the field you're sure to get quite a few.
It's not like the animals were staked there or hand raised until that morning.
Re:Staged hunt? (Score:4)
Actually, the way it works is lame. I'm a hunter... There are places you can go where they raise the birds, clip their wings and fence them in. The wings are clipped in such a way that they can fly a "bit" but can really fly off. So they'll still get up when your dog gets on them, but they cant get far. They raise so many that walking through their land pretty much assures you will get some.
Most of the other hunters I know consider this "cheating" because you're basically just shooting Livestock. There are even worse places where they keep the birds caged and just have guys release them to fly so you can pick them out of the sky. Again, totally lame. I'd agree that, if that were the kind of hunt her were on, he wasn't doing much more than using the birds as targets.
Re: (Score:2)
There are places you can go where they raise the birds, clip their wings and fence them in.
You know, while I'm sure this has existed, it's actually a lot of work compared to simply setting the conditions and letting the pheasants nest there naturally. Given the way wildlife works, they'll even settle back into the same spots because other birds have claimed the other habitats.
Also, I'd want to see some evidence that Cheney was doing that.
Re:Staged hunt? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a lot of work, however it isn't the "hunter" who does it. The owner of the "hunting ground" is the one who does it and then charges parties to go out and shoot the animals. Lots of paying jobs are work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canned_hunt [wikipedia.org]
and from that article; doesn't talk about that particular incident, but one a couple of years before:
What kind of dick uses live animals just as targets and kills more than many families could eat in a single session? Dick Cheney does. Which I mean, I have no problem with animal slaughter for food or clothing but, we don't call people who work in slaughterhouses hunters.
Sorry Sir, your license has no drone tag. (Score:3)
PETA, contact the NSA! (Score:2)
_you_ can't monitor the hunters and fishers but the NSA can. They don't have to listen to laws.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4D1godY4vI [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Nope, never met one. Course, the hunters I know are the strict "no alcohol Christian" types.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> 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!
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, but they're still right in this case. Peta sucks. Just meat with a couple of them sometime to hear their "Real" views and it'll become clear pretty quick.
Re: (Score:2)
Just meat with a couple of them
animal or human?
Comments are missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Solution for population control (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
You call it "harassment" (Score:2)
I call it "target practice"!
Illinois State...Really? (Score:2)
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]
What a complete joke of a quad copter. (Score:3, Informative)
What PETA doesn't want to understand (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. We learned this at age 13 in conservation camp. They showed us a film where they tried to heliocopter drop food to starving deer in the dead of winter (more deer came, there was never enough food, then the wolves picked up their collective scent) as a demonstration that, finally no matter what, there's nothing humanly doable about nature-induced animal suffering and starvation in the wild.
like the outdoors but can't hunt myself because can't bring myself to shoot a living fluffy doe-eyed thing that
As long as I can... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:clearly... (Score:5, Insightful)
peta cares about animals (does that mean they don't care about humans?
My experience with PETA is that the only thing they care about is themselves. They've done way more to serve their own smug senses of self-importance than they've ever done to help any animals.
Re: (Score:3)
My experience with PETA is that the only thing they care about is themselves.
Could you elaborate on your experience with PETA?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can. There was a faction of them at my college. Mostly privileged folks with a guilt trip so they flew around the world, crashing through Nicaragua and the Florida Keys and other places they could YOLO about telling the natives not to hunt squirrels. I'm exaggerating only slightly. Mostly they're just idiots. My most recent encounter with them was they're protest over a python hunt in Florida. Pythons are an invasive species in Florida and they're devastating the local environment. Doesn't stop a bunch of
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
" protesting how they're killed (decapitation, which is the most humane way to kill them)."
By that, I mean the pythons...
Re: (Score:3)
I'm exaggerating only slightly. Mostly they're just idiots
Yeah, I was hoping for a straightforward description. You see, hyperbole was the problem with the original post, your hyperbole isn't any more informative either.
decapitation, which is the most humane way to kill them
Seems to be untrue. Apparently it is an "acceptable" but "not recommended" method.
http://pythonchallenge.org/toolkit/euthanasia.aspx [pythonchallenge.org]
Re:clearly... (Score:4, Insightful)
What hyperbole? I'm not sure you actually know what the word means.
My experience with animal rights activists has been pretty similar. People with too much privilege to have personal experience with human problems and an utter lack of strategy in pursuing their agenda that results in a bunch of actions that only sound clever to people inside the group, that alienate everyone outside of it, and that more often than not hurt the cause of animal rights by being the worst living strawmen against it.
My law school had an animal rights program that overlapped a lot with the environmental program I was in, and most of the animal rights people were pretty flaky -- harmless and not nearly as self-sabotaging as PETA activists, but prone to stupid things like running around "casing" Asian food markets for sharks fin while all being a bunch of suspicious-acting white people who didn't speak a bit of Chinese and not really realizing the cost of shark's fin vs. the income bracket the stores they went to serviced.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, most likely the "official" site was modified with those idiotic instructions at the behest of PETA.
No, according to this news report dated Jan 7, 2013 [staugustine.com] - that was the wording before PETA complained.
These idiots than run around telling people crap because it "sounds right" are the cause of more animal pain than they would admit.
So far, your posts have made a pretty convincing argument the "idiot" here is yourself.
Why is it that all the anti-PETA people must exaggerate and make up stories? Its like you've projected your own problems onto PETA.
Re: (Score:3)
That's just one of many.
Already cited in that other post. It doesn't contradict PETA's claim of being a shelter of last resort. The only actual PETA shelter mentioned on that page went to court and the employees were acquitted of animal cruelty charges. They were convicted of littering though.
That's just one of many.
No, it doesn't seem to be the case. The houston shelter, the florida shelter, the king county shelters, none of them were PETA shelters.
They are human so they aren't perfect, but this claim about them "being fine with killing thousands of
Re: (Score:2)
peta cares about animals (does that mean they don't care about humans?)
PETA puts animal welfare above that of humans - they've demontrated it time and time again. That's what I hate about them. But it's pretty ironic in a way, since humans are animals too...
but using drones to "interfere" with people sounds like something only the government would engage in
Paparazzis do it too nowadays.
Re:clearly... (Score:5, Informative)
Also the way they put down huge numbers of animals [google.com], which on its own might be defensible, but then kinda-sorta argue that there's a moral equivalence between humans and animals [peta.org].
Re: (Score:3)
peta cares about animals (does that mean they don't care about humans?)
PETA puts animal welfare above that of humans
So they claim, but remember that PETA supporters are the people that call you a monster and mutilator for having your pets spayed and neutered.
Nevermind the fact that spaying and neutering is essential to keeping pet populations in check.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Skeet loads are too light. You'd want something more typical for geese or ducks to make up for the height/distance.
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary to your belief, most hunters are law abiding citizens and shooting the drones down would not be legal.
Now, if the state makes it legal, as they should, then yes, its open season.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is precisely the enforcement headache the gubment is trying to avoid.
- Harassing outdoors-men and scaring off game (Hunters are paying the government, that's a revenue stream) - Drones getting blasted out of the sky - Lead flying off in dangerous ways (hunters know better than to go shooting rifles in the air, but if you start buzzing 'em with drones, it would happen) - blasted drones falling out of th
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, it's revenue that pays for the parks and wilderness, preserving the habitat of those animals PETA loves so much. If the hunters didn't exist, then neither would the animals because it would all be farmland instead.
"Just outside of Chicago, there's a place called:" (Score:2)
No, you're thinking of the great state of Chicago and its suburbs.
Illinois is this tiny little place south of I-80 that no one pays attention to. Just ask House Speaker Mike Madigan. It's rumored he's even been there once, but his limo was going near 90 on I-57, so no one is quite sure it really was him.
Re: (Score:3)
for those shooting them down, they do video-to-phone, and if you shoot one down, these fucks will call the cops,
Let them. A number have been shot down already and when it comes out that the 'fucks' were using the drone to harass people it's really treated no different than if you try to get somebody for property destruction if they cut YOUR lock and chain that YOU put on THEIR bike. IE 'tough shit'.
Not a lawyer of course, mileage will vary by jurisdiction and circumstances, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Scaring the prey away from the hunters is interferring with the hunt.