Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Colorado Town Considers Drone-Hunting Licenses

Posted by Soulskill on from the heck-yeah-'murica dept.

New submitter ciotog writes "The town of Deer Trail, Colorado (population approximately 550) will be voting next month on whether to offer licenses for drone hunting. Furthermore, a bounty of $100 for each drone shot down will be offered (upon offering proof that the drone was potentially owned by the U.S. government). Is this just a fun gimmick, or a serious commentary on an increasingly surveillance based society?"

11 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. or could it be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    a completely illegal destruction of government property?

    1. Re:or could it be ... by minstrelmike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Besides all that, they even said that they have never even seen a drone over the town.

      Yes but that was before the town fathers took their anti-USA (Homeland Security) stance.
      I suspect the NSA has pulled all the records of the Deer Trail council folks by now.

    2. Re:or could it be ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... or personal property? http://diydrones.com/

      I own a drone (an RC helicopter w/ camera). I fly it in public parks and on my mom's farm. I don't fly it over other people's private property without their permission. If I did, I would have little right to complain if they shot it down.

    3. Re:or could it be ... by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I realize that this is a joke, but it might not be.

      Hear me out here:

      Drone operators send their drones to LOOK for something. Usually, out in rural america land, that thing they are looking for is "illegal marijuana farms".

      So, to decoy the drones, all you have to do is make marjuana plant decoys made out of silk, and stake them out in secluded pastures and clearings. Spread some rumors about pot farming happening in the area you are staking out.

      Then, when the drones fly in to investigate and take pictures, you pop them.

  2. I hope it happens. by intermodal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's no good reason to allow a surveilance state, and I support any government entity that helps the populace fight back against it in such efforts.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:I hope it happens. by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All this banter about the NSA = bad or Echelon = bad or the requirement of warrant is entirely missing the point. The truth is that this fundamental lack of privacy is guaranteed to happen. We live in an era when recording data is so cheap and so easy that it's happening accidentally, automatically, as a daily part of living life. Last time I had contact with the police, my phone recorded the entire thing from my pocket. Audio quality was quite good, too. With 32 GB of space on my phone, I could literally record my entire day, every day, and keep days worth of audio on hand in case something "interesting" happened. Oops! What happened to the privacy of those around me?

      But, the problem isn't the computers recording your every move, it's the secrecy with which it's being done and the lack of accountability that secrecy gives rise to.

      This was predicted years and years ago and the brilliant, understandable answer to avoid abuse is simple: transparency .

      I don't think that cops should have the option of wearing cameras; I think that no arrest should ever be done without them, and simply lacking the arrest footage should be enough to dismiss the case. Any and all public places should be open to be recorded without further notice. And all recordings of public places or of public officers in the performance of their duties should also be public. (with an appropriate time delay)

      Some areas are already experimenting with these ideas and the result is nearly 90% reduction in police misconduct complaints. The privacy of our actions is far less important than the abuse of the information collected.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  3. Not all 'drones' are drones.... by TimO_Florida · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Before you grab your shotguns and crossbows, remember that there are nearly a half-a-million radio-control plane enthusiasts out here in the countryside and we're NOT trying to spy on you. But we will send you a lawsuit and a big bill if you shoot down our planes.... ;-)

  4. Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well the DHS has purchased over a billion rounds of ammunition, plus lots of tanks and coffins, so they're ready to brutally put down an uprising.

  5. Re:Not a joke by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I live in Oregon. That's as west as you can get. :D Does that mean I'm a rugged individualist? Does that mean Texas is full of Help Me People?

    Maybe we should stop stereotyping. Maybe you need to talk to a hippy and see what they have the government just as much as you, and probably for much better (and much more real) reasons.

    Maybe these crowds of "Help me, I'm being picked on" people are just a stereotype that's been fed to you, so you dismiss lefties as whiners. Maybe because if lefties and righties got together and realized that they all hate what's being done in their name.... something would get done.

    Sorry, I'm being unfair here. I'm a little peeved. I spent last night listening to lefties talk(at a political meeting) about surveilance state, politics, the problems with our systems, and how Obama is continuing Bush policies if not making them worse. They're pissed off. And this morning, I endure a rant from a righty about how all lefties do is lick Obama's ass.... while he sat on the couch doing nothing but whining.... It has me a little annoyed, and your post prodded that.

  6. Re:Drones aren't deer. by rsborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better.

    An armed drone firing at an american citizen on american soil might be a PR bigger victory for the anti-drone libertarians than taking down the drone itself. Of course, I'm not sure I'd want to be the one to get precedented.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  7. Re:Cool by Kenoli · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How are drones supposed to fight forest fires? With missiles? They sure can't carry enough retardant aloft to even put out a sizable bonfire.

    Sure they can. There's no reason a drone couldn't carry as much as any manned aircraft.
    The RQ-4 is designed for high altitude and long endurance, rather than heavy payload, but even so it can carry 3000 lbs, which is comparable to existing light firefighting aircraft:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_firefighting

    Its surveillance capabilities have already been used to assist firefighters:
    http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123073731