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."

20 of 733 comments (clear)

  1. Over private property? by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 ----
    1. Re:Over private property? by green1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it's obvious that a 747 flying at 30,000 ft isn't trespassing... but it also seems obvious that somone on a hovercreaft skimming along a couple inches above the ground is. A drone weaving through your trees "feels" like tresspassing, but maybe one a couple hundred feet up wouldn't be?

      It does bring up an interesting question about where the distinction lies, what altitude is considered "public" vs "private"?

      Of course if the drone is camera equipped (almost guaranteed) you may be able to skip tresspassing rules and use peeping tom type laws against it at almost any altitude if it's filming parts of your property that would otherwise be private...

    2. Re:Over private property? by Mephistophocles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    3. Re:Over private property? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Over private property? by Tastecicles · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know about the US, but in the UK the regulations are very specific: Feral pigeons are a pest species, to be destroyed by any lawful means; this includes destruction of eggs/nests, preventive measures on building overhangs against roosting birds (pigeons are by nature cliff dwellers), and shooting them. If a pigeon is on your land (owner or tenant) or you have the authorisation by the landowner to be on his land with a firearm of whatever description covered by whatever ticket necessary (air rifles over 12fpe and pistols over 6fpe require a class 1 firearms ticket, those below require no licence whatsoever), and you have the means to destroy it with a clean shot you're pretty much obliged by Law to do precisely that.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  2. You'd Think They'd Learn by Revotron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. wait... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're using drones to investigate people that are good at shooting things that are flying in the air - seriously?

    1. Re:wait... what? by BenJeremy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:wait... what? by IonOtter · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Do you have a citation for that?"

      He doesn't, but I do:

      Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes. Title 34 Pa.C.S.A. Game. Chapter 23. Hunting and Furtaking. Subchapter A. General Provisions. Â 2302. Interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited

      Citation: PA ST 34 Pa.C.S.A. Â 2302

      Summary: This reflects Pennsylvania's hunter harassment law. It is unlawful for another person at the location where the activity is taking place to intentionally obstruct or interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title. Activities prohibited by this law include: driving or disturbing wildlife for the purpose of disrupting the lawful taking of wildlife; blocking, impeding or harassing a person engaged in lawful taking; using various stimuli to affect wildlife behavior to hinder lawful taking; and interjecting oneself into the line of fire, among other activities. Violation of this section is a summary offense of the second degree. A person adversely affected by prohibited activities may bring an action to restrain such conduct and to recover damages.

      --
      [End Of Line]
  4. hunting? by schlachter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:hunting? by vuke69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      EVERYTHING is tasty wrapped in bacon and fried in butter.

      --
      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
    2. Re:hunting? by firex726 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:hunting? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      I ate a chicken once.. Tastes like frog legs

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:hunting? by Cosgrach · · Score: 5, Informative

      WHAT?!?!!

      Dude, I used to raise chickens. They eat pretty much anything. Worms, snails, bugs, small children, and yes, some grain - you name it, chickens will eat it.

      If you are eating 'free range' chickens, then they are eating everything in sight. Caged chickens eat mostly grain, but that is not their natural diet. They get grain to make them fat.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
  5. investigating pigeon shootings by cfulton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:investigating pigeon shootings by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Informative

      The 'hunters', and I use that word loosely, seem to be growing pigeons in cages and releasing them from crates, whereupon they are shot by people standing a few yards away. 'Canned hunting' they call it. Idiot rednecks I call it.

  6. FAA Regulations Apply by Above · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Dropping the bass? MORE animal abuse? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    >> your neighbors dropping the bass at 2am

    Isn't that animal abuse too?

  8. Re:FCC may not allow it by NIK282000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  9. You need to learn a bit more about firearms by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.