Slashdot Mirror
Hunters Shoot Down Drone of Animal Rights Group
Required Snark writes "A remote control drone operated by an animal rights group was shot down in South Carolina by a group of thwarted hunters. Steve Hindi, the group president said 'his group was preparing to launch its Mikrokopter drone to video what he called a live pigeon shoot on Sunday when law enforcement officers and an attorney claiming to represent the privately-owned plantation near Ehrhardt tried to stop the aircraft from flying.' After the shoot was halted, the drone was launched anyway, and at this point it was shot down. 'Seconds after it hit the air, numerous shots rang out,' Hindi said in the release. 'As an act of revenge for us shutting down the pigeon slaughter, they had shot down our copter.' 'It is important to note how dangerous this was, as they were shooting toward and into a well-travelled highway,' Hindi stated in the release."
That's because while it's perfectly natural for animals to kill and eat other animals (including for humans to do it), the activists believe that unlike other carnivorous animals we have a choice.
Even a lot of those of us who do eat meat tend to believe that the animals shouldn't be caused unnecessary suffering, which also tends to fall under the "animal rights" label. As for the name, it's similar enough in intent to human rights that the name is appropriate (and even more so for those of us who do not consider human rights to be "God-given", but to be an artificial construct of a rational, civilised society).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Seriously, people are missing out on the obvious business opportunity here. Shooting at clay pigeons is boring. Why not get a fleet of armored drones and get people to PAY to shoot at them? You could have competitions among pilots to see how long they can last without getting shot, and make people PAY for that as well. I'm sure the hunters in this case were high-fiving each other like crazy. C'mon peeps, if you can't fight 'em, join 'em!
Forget the hunters. What if some Bozo flying a drone manages to crash it causing significant damage somewhere? Sue the Bozo? Naw, he ain't got no money. Sue the manufacturing for selling a dangerous product?
How do serious RC flyers handle this? Fly only over club owned land? Maybe a collective liability insurance for members?
The AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) is the national organization that most RC fliers are members of. They carry a liability insurance policy which covers members in the event of aero-modeling related accidents, as long as the member complied with the AMA code of conduct - which prohibits flying in the manner these people did. Flying over land that's not yours, or in a manner that could result in crashing on a roadway or other occupied area, is a violation. These guys created a much greater public hazard than the hunters. In fact, having seen the video, the hunters did not break any of the standard rules of gun safety and caused no hazard at all. The helicopter was well above and also to the side of all bystanders, such that falling shot would have landed far from any of the people.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
"For those wondering, the parent is correct: birdshot will fall to the ground harmlessly."
* Doesn't sound like a shotgun to me.
* The "highway" was smaller than many country roads.
* They claim the UAV was over the highway, but it doesn't look that way to me, they were definitely over the property across the the road.
* The video doesn't show any damage to the UAV not consistent with the hard landing.
* The only evidence that it was shot is someone saying it was shot on the conveniently running camera recording the flight of the UAV. (Not from the UAV itself)
* They claim that the shots were coming from the bushes near the road, yet the UAV camera was focused on the property on the opposite side of the road.
They've stretched the truth on their easily verifiable claims, to the point I'm not inclined to believe a word of their other claims until there is clear and good quality proof.
Having spent the weekend having an impromptu Mythbusters marathon, I've learned that once bullets start to tumble their terminal velocity is between 60 and 100 mph which will really really hurt if it hit you on the head but is not going to penetrate and kill you. However, if it keeps on its ballistic trajectory (i.e. not straight up) they can kill at quite a distance just like the poster said. These are not mutually exclusive positions. At the most it means you can't kill yourself by shooting up in the air.
Around in my area the animal lovers thing all hunting is cruel because the [animal in season] is such a majestic creature. My wife's family use to think like that until my wife and here mother smashed a large buck in a Mercury Grand Marquis at 60 MPH. Every year there are people decrying the barbaric practice of hunting wild game in the paper. Even some of my wife's relatives give me a hard time about taking wild game yet they still eat meat but it has to be free range and organic. I don't think they really understand what free range means as the deer, bear (still haven't managed to get one of these), pheasant, grouse, and rabbit I hunt are much more free range than anything they are buying. I also have relatives who live in Colorado and the animal lovers there have a similar view, they love the animals and don't want hunters until they hit one their car or it eats their garden and then they call my uncle out there and he hunts deer from their porch with his muzzle loader.
When I take game I am always trying to take it in the quickest most humane way. I practice shooting (I can consistently hit pop cans at a quarter mile with my deer and bear rifle), I know where I have to shoot to get the quick clean kill, I use the appropriate type of ammunition (203gr soft point for deer and bear, #2 to #4 steel shot for pheasant and grouse, 122gr hollow point for rabbit), I will immediately retrieve and clean the animals so they don't spoil (I have a cooler with ice in it back at the vehicle when small game hunting). The deer I got this year was a very quick clean kill with the shot going trough the heart and 1 lung and the deer only made it another 20 yards. From the time I shot it until it was at the butcher was less than 3 hours with a little over 1 hour drive to the processor and I had to clean it and drag it a half mile out of the woods. The same holds true with other in my hunting party, hunting stops for everyone until the game is retrieved, cleaned and on its way, we all help out. One year we spent over an hour looking for a pheasant that we shot and were using 5 dogs, we did retrieve it. I don't want it to go to waste and at the moment with the meat I have the best thing I can do is create the best tasting food I can with it
Time to offend someone
I don't have any problem with him carrying a "legal tool". I'm a handgun owner and a shooter. I've killed more bottles than a thirsty wino. When skeet see me coming down the street they run and hide. I love guns. I was at the range on Sunday, in fact. I practice for the day a hunter steps on to my property. I want to make sure I'm a good enough shot to scare him off without blowing his brains out.
The problem doesn't start when your friend carries a gun. The problem starts when he kills for fun.
Forty years ago, people believed that humans were the only species that experienced pain. (It's true). If you don't think an animal has a concept of privacy, why do you think animals camouflage their nests? And you're still missing the point. I don't loathe hunters because I'm so sentimental about animals. I loathe them because killing for fun is creepy. If something has to die for you to have a good time, then I would like round the clock surveillance on you. One of the reasons I like camo gear is because it allows easy identification of assholes.
I said I don't have a problem with killing an animal to eat. My problem comes with killing for "sport". Killing to eat is part of the world. Killing for fun is sick.
There may have been a time when the "fun" part of killing was an evolutionary adaptation. In the post-apocalyptic zombie future, we may once again need this adaptation. Until then, I want a Google maps overlay of the whereabouts and movements of every hunter. Better yet, let's set aside a few thousand acres and let them hunt each other. Put aside the pretense. Let's see them put some skin in the game. I would say "Make it pay-per-view and give the proceeds to food banks", but I believe that would be going a little over the top.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No. If you hunted & killed it yourself for fun, then fuck you.
There are people all over the world who hunt and kill their own food. If I was in a position of need, I would not hesitate to take a rabbit or turkey.
There's a big difference between hunting and killing to eat and hunting and killing for sport. They even call themselves "sportsmen". If something has to die for your entertainment, there is something wrong with you.
I've spent time on a farm. I witnessed and participated in slaughter of animals for food. There was no sense of "sport" or "entertainment" involved. And (this is important) no trophies kept. No glory claimed. And if the plan was to butcher a pig, there were no extra pigs slaughtered for self-aggrandizement. It was for food, not fun.
You are welcome on my lawn.