Slashdot Mirror
Activists' Drone Shot Out of the Sky For Fourth Time
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."
If you fly a drone over my land, ill shoot it down too. Its an invasion of my privacy and borderline trespassing.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Good I don't want to be spied on by the government anymore either... Err wait are these vigilantes? I guess spying is no good whoever doing it.
>> This is the fourth drone that the group has lost while investigating pigeon shootings
Bert, is that you?
Let's see here... an animal rights group flying a camera drone over private property full of gun-loving people they happen to have pissed off... yeah, um, how else would that turn out?
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.
They're using drones to investigate people that are good at shooting things that are flying in the air - seriously?
Were standard rounds shot into the sky?
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?
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
This group sneaking cameras into others' private property should be arrested for being peeping Toms.
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....
What is the world coming too.
We cant bring tonail clippers through security and get treated like a sub-human. If I wanted to terrorize you all I would use something bigger then a godamn tonail clipper.
We cant shoot drones down with pigeons over a golf course. God put those godamn pigeons there for practice. Gonna be allot more shit getting shot when you cant shoot the shit you should be shooting.
People wake the fuck up and stop smoking your crackpipes. Theres way worse shit to worry about then pigeons and oppressiong other peoples rights. No one is fucking hurting you. Pigeons arent going fucking extinct. You have no right to dictate to others what they can and cannot do. This goes both ways. Flying a drone in someone elses private property is akin to bugging their underwear, you are trippin if you arent going to get a reaction, potentially violent from your stupity. If you want your pigeons to be safe, lure them into your home area and protect them with fences and shit. You got much worse shit to do then waste your time and money invading peoples property and privacy with your crap. Why don't you put that $4000s and lawsuit money to work against MONSANTO AND BAYER AND OBAMA AND BANK OF AMERICA AND GOLDMAN SACHS, for starts.
Most likely there are absolutely no laws against killing pigeons, no hunting laws. Were I live the only thing you have to worry about is tresspassing by projectile. I would say your fucking drone tresspassed and ran into one of my projectiles that "just happened" to be flying there. Be glad thats all thats happend. Local police, or fish, wildlife and game management should handle this and it shoudn't even be newsworthy.
I love animals too. But, pigeon shootings? The town council in most small towns would buy the shells if you would kill the pigeons that flock to the town square. Sorry about their little toy helicopter, but you get what you deserve.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
Ah but law enforcement wants to be able to fly a drone over your property without a warrant any time they want. So not allowing these guys to do it would be a bad precedent.
Naming your spydrone 'Angel', even in America, is not going to save it from harm.
They could always try praying for it, I hear that works....
problem solved -- that makes it legal, right?
I'd rather think the animal rights sorts could be nailed with a significant civil suit for violation of privacy. Trespass? I'm less sure - there has been quite a body of law limiting "airspace rights" IIRC.
I am, of course, not a lawyer. Additionally, your mileage may vary.
Spy on people that have already taken steps to ensure their privacy? Equipment destruction is *tame*.
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.
How much to rent an armored helicopter and stay just outside of any "legally protected" airspace?
If anyone dares to shoot at that, then the police will have to get involved. After all, we would be talking attempted murder here.
I looked up "insanity." Your definition was not in the list. See?
I am aware of the (political) history of your definition, and it remains a bad definition of the word, useful usually to disparage people for persistence (which is usually a virtue, (but not always)).
They might be persisting in folly. YOU are propogating ignorance (of the English language).
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.
So, let me get this right, people who are both trespassing and spying get mad that their "drone" gets shot down? There's nothing legitimate about using a "drone" like this. Just because someone happens to be an "activist" doesn't mean they get a free pass to spy on people and trespass on their property.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
“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.
As a "rule of thumb" I'd say if you are so high up that you require FAA approval, you are in the clear when it comes to trespass claims.
If you are in that space through an emergency or no fault of your own - such as you just got shot at - then you are also free from trespass claims.
Below that height and you'll have to check state and federal laws. Absent any laws protecting the aircraft owner or any local common practices that show that this is not trespass, I'd convict on a trespass charge if I were on the jury.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Dear Slashdot:
I'm a proud animal rights activist who feels so strongly about my viewpoint that I create arbitrary laws in my own head. Recently, I was surveilling an illegal(in my head) pigeon shoot at the pigeon hunters club. I was hovering an RC octocopter, that I over paid for, over their range and one of them shot my octocopter!
In fact, this is the fourth time I have flown my octocopter like this and someone has shot at it. One time I even lost my octocopter on their land. The shooting of my octocopter is as illegal(in my tiny mind) as shooting pigeons.
I've repeatedly called the cops about this, but they are all corrupt because they keep telling me that there is nothing that they can do and that I should stop flying my octocopter over other people's private property! Can you imagine. Worse, they say that shooting pigeons is OK. Obviously, they've been paid off by the pigeon eaters society.
OMFG! Help me Slashdot. Help me fight for the rights of pigeons and trespassing octocopter owners. Won't somebody think of the drones?
Love always,
Whiney Ass Bitch
Flying UAV's over someone's property that you know will shoot at it is foolish. Spending 4000+ on a UAV and not opting for the high res camera that would allow you to fly it well out of range of the shot guns, pure stupidity. Keep wasting that money. I'm sure the hunters like the UAV practice more than the pigeon hunt. Your UAV only has to be within visible range. Being within range of their Ammo is not required. However, once they know this they'll get their own UAV's to take yours down.
What are the FAA and other rules, if any, regarding model airplanes and other unmanned flying machines?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
We're using flying machines...against armed opponents...who are there to shoot flying things in the first place...
How did we fail?
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
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
That's why I have a SAM site.
Depending on what frequencies these craft use, scrambling the airwaves may get the "pirate radio operators" into serious trouble with the FCC.
Now, if they are using unlicensed or other non-protected frequencies, then this tactic may be legal.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
>> your neighbors dropping the bass at 2am
Isn't that animal abuse too?
Knowing the sort of social structure that exists in these organizations I would not be surprised if there was a pooling of funds and award of bounties from the pool for each shiny pigeon that was bagged.
Maybe a trophy too.
I think it might be more fun than shooting the pigeons.
Instead of shooting it down, just buy a 60 dollar controller, cycle through the 5 possible channels, and once it becomes closer to you than it is to them, crash it.
If someone is disrupting your ability to legally use your private property but they are not committing a crime in the process, we have a remedy:
A civil suit seeking an injunction against future similar behavior and damages for past losses.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
>> your neighbors dropping the bass at 2am
>Isn't that animal abuse too?
Only if the neighbors survive the first shots you fire.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Gonna be allot more shit getting shot when you cant shoot the shit you should be shooting.
I'm sure I've heard this before. Who sad it? Was it Ghandi? Buddah? Bubba?
The capcha reads "Oration". How doe sit know?
These guys are terrible shots. They aimed way too high, hit the cool electronic gadget and missed the hippies. I don't think they won the shootout.
Learn something before you start name calling.
Removing an invasive species so that the original fauna may flourish? Why would you wish to prevent that?
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
pigeons keep showing up with west nile virus in San Francisco. Those birds carry nearly as many diseases as the humans that live in that city.
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.
The socialists on Capital Hill have made it illegal to shoot hippies. They eat the same food as pigeons (bugs and seeds), so I don't see why I keep getting tried for murder.
it is very effective!
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.
[End Of Line]
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.
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?
The FAA is currently drafting rules:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576341780810193932.html
Basically back in the day model airplanes didn't go far enough, fast enough, or high enough to matter. There was no video back to the ground that a hobbiest could afford, so it was "stay under 400', and keep it in sight", and basically no rules.
UAVs, and law enforcement's interests in them have changed that, so the FAA is scrambling to draft rules for them.
This also has implications for the hunters, I would suppose. If the courts think this was a model plane, then probably it's a civil tort for them shooting it and destroying it. If the courts think it is an aircraft operating over the space shooting at it likely carries the same potential federal penalty as taking down a jetliner with a stinger missile...
Damn right. They just play into the globalists hands for a future where pole can't even hunt for they're own food anymore.
Now Im all for animals rights and so on but personally I fucking hate almost all people who label themselves activists simply because they are smug, pretentious, closed minded, intrusive and really damned annoying. Essentially activists go in the same area as religious rightwing assholes do in that all they really do is tell me what I should be thinking, annoy the hell out of me, make a lot of noise and not really do anything beyond that.
So dont shoot down the drones, thats a waste of good parts. Instead shoot the activists and make this world a better place.
"stay under 400', and keep it in sight", and basically no rules.
And, of course, have permission to be flying the model aircraft there.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Does anyone know when the next drone shoot will be? I'd like to attend.
Morons. The only good thing is Americans shoot each other a lot too, showing at least some good taste. There "Hunters are nothing other then pathetic micro dicks.
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 is #7.5. As Dick Cheney 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.
I don't read AC A human right
Better be ready to see your little toy explode.
Shooting at drones sounds like a lot more fun than shooting at pigeons.
The drone should have been the #1 target that day.
Got what it deserved.
Using one, does not prevent he other.
Shoot the drone down first, then call the sheriff for trespassing--you have the drone as evidence; Then file an injunction.
It's illegal to even aim a laser pointer at an aircraft. How much more illegal is it to fire shots at an aircraft, drone or otherwise?
So we can consider the question of flying objects over a bird-shooting range using our nether borderline reasoning that we use when we have to distinguish between flat dumbness and the patently obvious, if you fly any peculiar small object over a bird-shooting range, what the hell do you expect???
"Is that a self-powered skeet, or a high tech clay-pigeon?"
"Dunno, bring 'er down and we'll have a look..." ..."Well, I'll be damned... Rover, you want one of these propellors to worry? It's the nearest there is on this sucker to a wing..."
Maybe you should remind the hunters of that, since they keep shooting despite the drones keep coming back.
Success for the shooters is bringing a drone down. Adding more drones simply adds to the success teh hunters are having.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You have that completely backwards, which is of course not surprising at all given the venue.
Personally I think they should unleash and kill as many of them as possible, then go after their handlers, Iran and their other puppet, Lebanon. Nothing but shit will ever come out of those places anyway.
Seriously, I could build the exact same octo for about $350. Cinestar a rich person's toy. Someone paying for the label. Rich douchbags with no actual skill.
Morally, I don't see how you could get away with it, though.
Pretty easily - it's a fish.
I don't agree with hurting fish any more than you do but I am not foolish enough to claim it is a moral imperative not to do so. The way real animals get killed in the wild is equally awful but I allow it to continue rather than hunting down all predators...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Eventually the drones will get cheap enough that they can just replace the pigeons entirely, and then PETA can have fun flying their toys and the hunters can have fun shooting them down, and no animals get hurt at all.
Ok... seriously? I understand what the Animal Rights group is trying to accomplish, but they do know that the hunters hurl clay objects into the sky for the sole purpose of shooting them, right? Why the heck would you give them a hovering object to shoot at?
Ah, there you're right and you're wrong.
As I understand it, the police told Wing Point (the club) that they have to hand over the remains of the drone "or they could be liable for a felony". While it might possibly be a felony, it's certainly grounds for a civil suit. And SHARK has a document that looks like the opening for a civil suit. I certainly don't blame the police for staying out of it once a suit is filed - any 'felony' remedies can certainly be compensated for by court awards, in theory.
Unlike some sites that cover lawsuits (their own or others), there does not appear to be any timeline tracking the suit, nor notice of when it was filed, yadda yadda. So to me it looks more like they're interested in the publicity than in the prosecution. Kinda loses my vote at that point.
Your example is not apropos. A better example on the lawsuit would be retrieving a fallen weather balloon or camera-laden rocket. (An example that leaves out HOW the object got there - how it got there is a separate issue.)
In this case, the hunters shot it, it fell into a tree on the club property. No mention is made whether the drone was on the club's property itself, but it'd have to be close to land in the tree.
But the police SHOULD be interested in this for precisely the reason you mention: "... shots fired...". In this case, firing on the drone means they weren't firing on the carefully plotted pigeon range, but instead over inhabited areas. The proper response would have been to call the police to remove the nuisance. ... but you already covered why police don't show up for that sort of thing, didn't you?
I'm rather more worried about irritated people with guns who aren't maintaining gun discipline, than I am about pigeons getting killed or protesters losing their toys.
This is what NZ does to its vermin problem :
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10797453
and it REALLY sucks to be a rabbit down here :
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10797453
I'm thinking that the vast majority of Slashdotters would starve to death if they couldn't buy their food at Quickie Mart.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
One other fact nobody has mentioned is that by flying this over people, PETA is also violating several provisions of the code of conduct established b the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) intended to help keep the public safe. Model helicopters in the $4K range are no-joke dangerous if they hit someone. This sort of activity (especially using a helicopter to harass people) puts at risk the rights of geeks everywhere to build and fly model aircraft, by encouraging legislators and bureaucrats to pass new laws and regulations.
AMA code
If any of the PETA people doing this are AMA members, I hope they have their memberships revoked...
Is shooting the drone down illegal?
Hint: Legally the answer has everything to do with the law, and nothing to do with karma.
A lot of people say that the activists deserve to get raped in the ass and that somehow the hunters have a karma derived variety of diplomatic immunity that lets them shoot the drones down and get away with it just because the activists were being jerks.
Call me an hypocrite but I think there is a difference between the right to privacy in one's home and the rights to privacy in my exclusive multi-acre hunting grounds club. These people own a sizeble chunk of the environment. You know. That stuff most of us learn about in school. These people are breaking animal rights laws. We don't let a factory pollute the grounds just because it is "private territory". I don't feel sorry fo these rednecks at all.
But... the future refused to change.
I am a hunter and I disapprove of the behavior of both parties.
Pigeon is actually a decent tasting bird. In my view a hunter doesn't kill anything they don't intend to eat, outside of honest pest control. If they are shooting captive raised birds without consuming them they are doing it for sport, and it's a sick sport I wouldn't participate in.
If it's a legal sport though the activists need to take their fight to the legislature and not harass law abiding citizens. I'd personally be all for making pigeon a game bird with a year round season and no limit just so the meat couldn't be wasted.
Basically back in the day model airplanes didn't go far enough, fast enough, or high enough to matter. There was no video back to the ground that a hobbiest could afford, so it was "stay under 400', and keep it in sight", and basically no rules.
It was never "stay under 400 feet" -- that figure comes from an FAA "advisory" circular that was not mandatory. The AMA has a rule that limits you to 400' within a few miles of an airport, but that's not mandatory either.
Gliders especially are often flown higher than that -- I've gotten mine up to 2500' feet, for example. (And yes, it's a speck that high.)
You're right about "keep it in sight", however. People played with R/C planes with autopilots, but they were rare until recently, and now the FPV stuff has become quite common.
I think you're right on about the implications for the hunters. The courts will see this as a model plane, and the pilots can probably sue the hunters for the damage. (Really, the hunters should be given criminal charges for vandalism, perhaps aggravated for having been done with firearms, but obviously the police aren't interested in that.) The courts probably won't see it as an attack on a manned aircraft, however -- as it's not one.
As I see it, the SHARK folk should get an ultralight or single engine plane and do their surveillance from that. If the hunters shoot at that, the police will have to descend upon the hunters with extreme fury. Yes, they'll need to stay higher, but they can also use better camera equipment.
Captive pigeon shooters are not hunters. They are pigeon killers, and have no sense of honor or decency. Please do not insult real hunters by calling these assholes "hunters". The "activists" are idiots and shoud not be allowed to vicariously enter private property to spy on what the property owners and guests are doing. They are not the law and it is none of their business. If I saw a camera equipped drone flying over my property, I would try my best to shoot it down.
Look it up in wikipedia under "air right". That altitude is the cruising altitude naturally. For landing and take off you can start from zero.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Sounds like they should just hold the pigeon shoot near a power plant or similar area. These generally have NOTAMs forbidding loitering flight nearby post-9/11. Who knows - maybe if you tell the FAA about your shooting you could have a NOTAM for the area overhead as well for the safety of general air traffic.
I'm not a pilot, but I would think that in general loitering over a particular occupied area at anything other than high altitude is frowned upon.
That said, I'm sure if they were high enough they could mount effective surveillance from a manned aircraft, and clearly shooting at those is asking for trouble. At serious altitude firing on an aircraft is a non-trivial problem in any case. A light aircraft today isn't really any easier to kill than a WWI or early WWII fighter, and just look at the kind of flak they used back then.
Renew! Renew! Renew!
I wonder if whoever shot down the drone is the same one who shot the pigeons down?
Inquiring minds want to know...
My bet is... The Pigeon's tired of supplying sulfur to match companies... Slave labor and all. So they sacrificed themselves knowing they'd evolve into drones. As we all know, drones get more respect than pigeons. So now it's making the news.
Don't go thinking pigeons are dumb.
They must have seen the Rodney Dangerfield movies. "I dont get no respect"....
I imagine the pigeon shoot is being done on private property, so it's not like they can just do it wherever they want.
As for the rules near power plants, if model or full scale aircraft are prohibited, the discharging of firearms and hunting probably is too.
I'm pretty sure the hunters were shooting at the model because 1) they were already equipped to do it, 2) it sounded like fun, and 3) they thought they could get away with it. They might claim to be "defending their property" or "defending their privacy", but the police really ought to have a *very* dim view of them discharging firearms at other people's property to do so. Since the police aren't getting involved, the SHARK folk should be suing the hunters for damages -- hit them in the pocketbook.
The hunters could claim that it's tresspassing, but that's a criminal matter, not a civil one, and even if it were the case (which has not been established) it wouldn't give them the right to fire at other people's property.
Can't remember where I heard this but supposedly when the Normans took over England the language got changed. Basically if it was an animal protein that only the nobles got to eat then it got the French name.(IE Pork or Beef.) Animals the regular guy could eat, IE Chicken, got to keep the anglo name.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Soooooo we're golden to fly over Area 51?
If you think this is OK, you're obviously mentally ill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKZWfpjqeKA
I'm not going to argue that these activists should be doing this, but I have to ask... Why are they flying such expensive pieces of equipment for this purpose? It's crazy. You can build a really nice drone for $1000, and a half-decent one for a few hundred. That includes fairly long range RC and video transmission *and* FPV goggles. Heck, autopilot with GPS and return-home on signal loss wouldn't even push the price that high. Just search Youtube for "FPV" and you quickly find out that pretty incredible things can be done inexpensively with off-the-shelf RC hobby gear.
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
but the police really ought to have a *very* dim view of them discharging firearms at other people's property to do so. Since the police aren't getting involved, the SHARK folk should be suing the hunters for damages -- hit them in the pocketbook.
The police (and courts) probably would take a pretty unfavorable position on the destruction of someone's property if it were an RC plane that accidentally flew over the property, and there weren't any obvious, extenuating circumstances.
This group of shitheads is doing their best to harass people on a property they're not allowed on. They'd be arrested immediately if they set food on the property, so they figured they'd use something that doesn't touch the ground as a legal loophole.
Nobody appreciates those kinds of shenanigans, and I won't be surprised if they get hit for harassment, trespassing, criminal surveillance, or even peeping tom laws.
The might want to try turbine powered drones. Something like this should be a lot more difficult to shoot.
Not that I give a shit about flying rats^W^Wpigeons, but if these activists want to be taken seriously they need to use actual drones. The explody kind.
Do you shoot overflying airliners too? After all, they're flying over your land and it's an invasion of your privacy and borderline trespassing!
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to reply though. Your sig makes abundantly clear how much reasonable argument we can expect...
I don't really understand why on would use a $4000 Octo copter in the first place.
If you wan to do surveillance build a high altitude, efficient RC plane that can circle via GPS on a preposition location and just send you FPV video.
Build a Dome Cam under it linked to a ground controller and just circle that baby all day long streaming real time video to you.
Neither activity conducted by amatuers ever occurs without alcohol. Or haven't you noticed the banners at liquour stores welcoming hunters every year? Hell, Bud Light is offering their cans in Safety Vest Orange this year (Dios Mio).
At least on the 19th hole, the kill radius of a five iron is rather limited.
...never seem to figure out "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".
I don't condone shooting live pigeons, but there is a bigger issue here. The use of drones to spy on people and big brother keeping his eye on everything people do is something that can be and will always be abused.
The lines have been drawn, and crossed. People are shooting the drones down and more power to them. If you don't want your drone shot down, then I suggest you restrict it's use to rescue operations only.
Sending a drone over the land was brilliant. You found something they like to shoot more than birds, and if they are shooting drones instead, it may save a few birds lives.
Keep doing that.
"Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke... Wham "Ow mommy, he hit me!" "
And yet, very few, if ever, make this connection between America's foreign policy and why 9/11 happened.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Posting to undo mod. Sorry - numb fingers strike again. Good (funny) post.
Basically animal rights activists are saying there are no other "human" problems in the world that needs to be addressed so they will spend their time, money and efforts protecting sky rats.
Must be nice to live in that self delusional utopia.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Google Maps satellite pictures aren't much good for saying something happened at a particular time. The photo of my house shows a minivan that we traded two years ago.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Pigeons are a delicacy in certain parts of the world.
If you ever visit Egypt's country side, you will find that it is dotted by tower like structures, which are actually nests for domestic pigeons. The chicks are "harvested" and eaten all over Egypt, before they fly and the muscles harden.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Tired of Government snooping on you without warrant under the guise of "protecting the public" BS!
So now private parties are using drones too, WTF? Let's learn to disable those eyes in the sky, my privacy is worth more than whatever their goal is !
Nah, he's just throwing them back.
We used to call it "Choking the Chicken", but there's nothing wrong with it, as long as you wash your hands afterwards.
I'd sign up for next year's shoot just to go drone hunting.
Brockton Bridge Plantation is a legal hunting club. http://www.broxtonbridge.com, "shooting" a "drone" out of the sky would mean that it would be torn to smithereens, especially since bird hunting entails the use of a shotgun, not a rifle. It may possibly have been shot down with a pistol, but accuracy is limited, and there is an extreme potential of injury if not fired correctly. Also a company or private residence has control of their airspace up to 500 feet. Ever heard the term "No Trespassing Violators will be shot."
Has anyone noticed they a breeding pest birds and releasing them into the environment? Aren't there some federal environment and state maintenance and health laws about that? How about large scale slaughtering of unregistered animals?
Let's just leave out blasting large amounts of just released birds in a small arena has as much to do with hunting as scooping dead fish from a barrel has to do with fishing. Lazy rednecks in barbarian mode doesn't impress me and should be illegal just on the stupid standpoint alone. You want to hunt, go out and earn it. I also believe in the 'to each his own' viewpoint but some things are just a little too much.
Buy that shooter a beer!
since that counts as public airspace.
Hover a drone over my property and I'll shoot it down too.
Certainly! It's likely to hurt as much as being slapped with a mullet.
Said mullet may well be annoyed as well.
I used to work at a large downtown church and there were hundreds of pigeons that roosted on the church after a nearby building was torn down. The janitors had to sweep and wash down the steps daily to keep the droppings down to the point where people wouldn't have to wade through the mess every time they came into the church.
We started live trapping them, using water for bait and after they were live trapped we sold them to a shooting club. That way they didn't come back. Ever.
After a couple of months of trapping and a hawk moving in to one of the bell towers we no longer had a problem.
Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
Read it carefully. It was an act of revenge for getting a (presumably illegal) pigeon shoot cancelled. Enough said. OK
If I raise a 100 birds from hatching (chickens, pheasants, etc) on my farm and when they are right I decide to butcher them...whether I cut their heads off with an axe or break their necks and bleed them after...thats okay...but if I release them and give them a fighting chance at survival and let some guys take shots at them thats NOT okay...wow sounds like the activists arent really on the side of the birds...cool I'll just keep them in the pens they were in and kill them the easy way.
I love how off track the /dot replies get..(its like a textual Jerry Springer these days)...any how the striking point is that they were intruding on private land...to try to disrupt legal actions of law abiding citizens that cared and fed their own birds to hunt... I dont hunt or forest...but if I was a responsible forester it would be expected that I plant in advance for my crop...thats all these guys are doing IMO
Each hunter has a preset kill limit. So I sent wave after wave of my own drones until they hit their kill limit and shut down.
If you are allowed to shoot at things that come into your property then I should be able to shoot anything that comes into my property.
They should just hang a bullet proof plexiglass disc or half-sphere beneath it.
A little information from us RC airplane pilot hobbyists: (I own and operate a home-built unmanned drone plane for fun) This sort of flying is called "FPV Flying", for First Person View. You can spend absolutely everything you want to know about it on the FPV boards over on www.rcgroups.com for anyone that's interested: http://www.rcgroups.com/video-piloting-fpv-rpv-469/ It has been debated legally for several years now, and the bottom line is per the FAA, as long as you are not interfering with actual manned airplanes, there isn't much you're not allowed to do, as long as you obey the controlled airspace laws. For example, you must stay below 400 feet when within 3 miles of an airport. Furthermore, most everyone that flies RC seriously at least knows, and is usually a member of, the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). In the last few years, the AMA has been working closely with the FAA to try and put together safety guidelines for unmanned FPV planes and drones. Those guidelines can be found here: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf On a personal note about the article, I highly doubt these activists were following all the AMA guidelines for FPV flying.
Nice shot.
Maybe it's not a drone, maybe the Matrix screwed up and it's shooting down Superman with Stinger missiles.
I'm afraid I have to agree with the Americans. If that drone was over private property and in private air space it's fair game. Conduct surveillance from clearly identified PUBLIC space or GTFO.