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."

Comments

Re:Over private property?

[night_flyer]

its not even borderline trespassing, your property includes the space above your property

You'd Think They'd Learn

[Revotron]

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.

Re:You'd Think They'd Learn

[swillden]

since it's not clear when to apply it, vs. "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

I don't see any contradiction between the two. If at first you don't succeed, try again, but don't continue trying to do exactly the same thing. There has to be some variable involved that gives you reason to think your next attempt may be different than what has come before. If the variable is your skill or ability, then repeated attempts may ultimately lead to success, so try again. Even if there's just an element of randomness which assures different outcomes, and the degree of possible variation is sufficient that some trial may have success, then persistence makes sense. But if it's clear that there are no variables capable of significantly changing the outcome then it's absolutely true that expecting a different result is a useful definition of "insanity", in the sense of a disconnection from reality.

Re:Over private property?

[schlachter]

at any altitude?
what about public airspace?

Re:Over private property?

[AK Marc]

So when that 747 flies over my house, I can sue AA for millions for trespass?

hunting?

[schlachter]

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?

Re:hunting?

[Synerg1y]

Ya... no shit are they going to go after people who shoot prairie dogs on their land? Those people have some pretty good reasons for doing so... Animal rights groups are so hard to take serious because of people like this, I'm sure the owner of the drone worked hard for the 4k it cost... or more than likely just asked daddy. There's actual work that can be done to help the environment and the planet, spying on flying rat shooters doesn't make the top 100 even.

Re:hunting?

[vuke69]

EVERYTHING is tasty wrapped in bacon and fried in butter.

Re:hunting?

[firex726]

Also aren't pidgins a real nuisance in some cities that they try and exterminate them?

Re:hunting?

[Arker]

I used to raise chickens too. Growing up on a farm with a good chicken population cured me of the desire to eat the things. They are trash. They eat whatever they can peck up. If you pour out grain they will eat it - along with everything else on the ground, including their own feces. If you neglect to feed them they will happily peck up that feces without any filler. 'Free range' chickens are a joke - they are just chickens left to their own devices, which means ~80% of their diet is feces instead of only ~20%. Chickens have a brain smaller than my thumb and if you were to predict their behaviour based on that you would overestimate their intelligence by several orders of magnitude. It is probably impossible to exaggerate just how dumb these things are - anything close to the truth would seem unbelievable to those that dont have experience keeping them.

Pigeons, by comparison, are bloody geniuses. And they are still only a little smarter than a grasshopper.

Pull!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

Re:wait... what?

[BenJeremy]

They are actually using the drones to harass the hunters by scaring the birds they are hunting.

The drones are just a tactic to disrupt the hunters. These things should be shot down, and the idiots that keep sending them in should be arrested and thrown in jail.

Re:investigating pigeon shootings

[cfulton]

Just looked it up on in my hunters guide:

Pigeons, also known as rock doves or rock pigeons, are classified as a pest species, not a game species, and can be shot year-round.

What exactly are they complaining about. Sounds like lawful activity to me.

Re:Over private property?

[Mephistophocles]

Well, there's also the fact that a 747 isn't spying on you - or even potentially spying on you. If someone's flying a drone on your property with the intention of watching you without your permission, I think they've definitely crossed a line. Also, is shooting pigeons a crime? If not, this also clearly differentiates the action from police investigation (assuming it's legitimate/lawful monitoring).

So...

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:Over private property?

[girlintraining]

at any altitude? what about public airspace?

This issue is well-established in law. Ever seen those balloon rides or events? They tend to land on private property. In fact, it's pretty much inevitable. You know what happens? Nothing. The police don't show up. The land owner doesn't shoot the balloons out of the sky. Strangely, people seem to act civilized (shocking, I know). On occasion, the balloon chase vehicle and pilot need to pay for property damage, because they do land in crop fields from time to time, but this is well-understood by all parties to be the cost of doing business -- hand shakes resolve these issues more than lawsuits.

Then you have animal rights activists. They take a position not supported by law (pidgeon shoots are legal) and then fly a loud mini-copter with surveillance gear over an area filled with dozens to hundreds of sharpshooters who disagree with their position. And they then acted shocked and dismayed when their toys get shot down and the police do nothing. News flash: The police don't have to investigate any crime. They have broad discretion. Know why? Because your neighbors dropping the bass at 2am may not be as important as the shots fired call four blocks away. And just about everything is more important than some inflammatory political activists pissing off their neighbors on purpose to try and make something that's legal now illegal tomorrow. If I'm a police officer, I'm going to be dragging my ass responding to any call you make, if I respond at all... because you're being a nuisance. This is like insulting the girl hanging off Mike Tyson's arm. Dude, you're gonna lose.

Since it's clear nobody RTFA

[ilsaloving]

“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.

Re:FCC may not allow it

[NIK282000]

I'm not sure if you follow PETA's actions very closely but the legality of other peoples actions has no bearing on whether PETA harasses them.

Re:Over private property?

[tompaulco]

And just about everything is more important than some inflammatory political activists pissing off their neighbors on purpose to try and make something that's legal now illegal tomorrow.
How is spying on somebody who is obeying the law supposed to help make the activity illegal? Shouldn't they be spending all that time writing their congresscritters? Of course, the answer is "no", because what they are trying to do is paint the shooters in a bad light. Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke, Poke... Wham "Ow mommy, he hit me!" Then post a slashdot article and presto! Instant support for your position.

Re:Over private property?

[hairyfeet]

Exactly and some states are a hell of a lot stronger on private property rights. I know here in the south what it says on the books and what is actually true is two different things, judges here are pretty pro property rights and unless it was the cops spying on other people's property is pretty much a big no no, especially screwing with the hunters.

And do these "animal rights" bunches know what will happen if you get rid of the hunters? i do because deer hunting was banned for a couple of years here while a court case was being fought, what you ended up with was huge herds of sickly starving deer running into the streets and causing quite a few accidents and a couple of deaths. Whether they like it or not unless they are willing to MASSIVELY repopulate predators like panthers, cougars, bears, wolves, and deal with the "Little Suzy was eaten by a bear" stories since we humans are fat and slow when little thus perfect predator chow? Well then you are just gonna have to put up with the hunters, because the game animals breed like bunnies because of thousands of years of dealing with large amounts of predators that just don't exist in the wild in the numbers to keep their population in check.

so while I don't personally hunt (sitting out in the cold woods for hours freezing my nuts off ain't my thing) I personally have no problem with them,k because i know without them you'll have a huge overpopulation problem very quickly.

Re:When is it OK to be a peeping tom?

[Nexion]

I don't really support them. I just don't care about the pigeons. I do care about their right to privacy, and do see the operators of the UAV to be antagonistic trespassers. Perhaps you don't like privacy, or perhaps believe violating privacy is OK when used against a minority you do not like. Which is it Falconhell?

Re:FAA Regulations Apply

[HornWumpus]

Bullshit.

Skilled helicopter pilots routinely practice autogyro landings to stay sharp. The best I've known could drive a construction marker spike into the ground with his skid while autogyroing (again to stay sharp). Granting he was a retired helicopter test pilot.

The deadmans curve is altitude _or_ forward motion. If you have ether you can autogyro.

You have complete control when autogyroing, what you don't have is a second shot. Just like gliding in a fixed wing.