Colorado Town Considers Drone-Hunting Licenses

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Colorado Town Considers Drone-Hunting Licenses

Posted by Soulskill on Friday July 19, 2013 @05:01AM 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?"

36 of 341 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

or could it be ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 05:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

a completely illegal destruction of government property?
1. Re:or could it be ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That depends on the DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED representatives of the People of Deer.
  If the People say they don`t want drones over their heads, and the People`s Representatives truly "represent" vox populi,
  THE DRONE ITSELF IS ILLEGAL.
2. Re:or could it be ... by pspahn · 2013-07-19 05:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Everyone, please! Take this story seriously!
  It was actually on the news the other night and they interviewed I believe the mayor, the guy drafting the bill, and some other sheriff or somebody. They clearly stated "this is a symbolic gesture only". Everything about this bill says so. You're only allowed to use a shotgun firing pellets (lot of good that will do with the drone at altitude), and the bounties paid out are nowhere near a practical amount of money for the effort put in.
  Besides all that, they even said that they have never even seen a drone over the town.
  
  --
  Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
3. Re:or could it be ... by minstrelmike · 2013-07-19 06:01 · 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.
4. Re:or could it be ... by JTsyo · 2013-07-19 06:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So you're saying there's a market for cannons that shoot shotguns which in turn has a prox sensor to fire and take out drones?
5. Re:or could it be ... by ShanghaiBill · 2013-07-19 06:15 · 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.
6. Re:or could it be ... by lymond01 · 2013-07-19 06:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is not an "anti-USA" stance,
  Indeed. It is actually a pro USA stance, though it is also an anti-US Government stance. Something both sides should do well to remember: the US Government is not the United States of America. When the government starts committing acts in the name of its citizens that those very citizens disagree with, this is when people get voted out in our happy democracy.
7. Re:or could it be ... by cusco · 2013-07-19 07:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If this passes they should carry shotguns in the balloons. They'll be a lot closer to any drone than the guys on the ground will be, and will have a much better shot at the bounty.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
8. Re:or could it be ... by Obfuscant · 2013-07-19 07:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If the People say they don`t want drones over their heads, and the People`s Representatives truly "represent" vox populi,
  So if the majority of the city council decided to condemn your home, tear it down, and sell the land to McDonalds, you'd be fine with that because it was "vox populi"?
  The ordinance doesn't say that the drone has to belong to the US government or even be flying at the time. All it has to have is "markings similar to" the markings on a kind of UAV known to be owned by the US. That means if you put a US flag decal on your private UAV, well, that's a marking that meets that definition. If your neighbor sees you holding it and shoots it out of your hand, he gets a bounty. Destruction of private property now nets anyone who does it not jail time but a bonus.
  Oh, but nobody owns their own UAV, right? I got one for Christmas, and I've seen them in the stores for about $30.
  
  THE DRONE ITSELF IS ILLEGAL.
  What utter and complete nonsense. You may have the opinion that the use of a UAV in a certain manner may violate the constitution using your own interpretation of same, but claiming that "the drone itself is illegal" is just pathetic. In fact, your claim to "vox populi" shoots you in the foot on this one, since there is no "vox populi" laws making them illegal.
9. Re:or could it be ... by Jawnn · 2013-07-19 08:11 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You're only allowed to use a shotgun firing pellets (lot of good that will do with the drone at altitude), and the bounties paid out are nowhere near a practical amount of money for the effort put in.
  Well of course shootin' 'em at altitude makes no sense. Waste of birdshot. And sluicin' 'em (shooting them at rest on the ground) ain't sportin'. That's why I got my brother-in-law working on some decoys right now, and I fired up the ol' cassette recorder to practice my drone callin'. See, you want to catch just as they're coming in low over the decoys.
  Might have to find me a bigger bird dog, though.
10. Re:or could it be ... by wierd_w · 2013-07-19 10:45 · 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.
I hope it happens. by intermodal · 2013-07-19 05:06 · 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 i+kan+reed · 2013-07-19 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  And there's certainly no legitimate uses for aerial devices besides spying on people. I'm given to understand that missing persons cases never crop up in rural Colorado. And I certainly can't envision using aerial drones to help with wildfire control. Or environmental surveys. Or mapping. Or weather. Or any number of legitimate government functions. It's all to spy on intermodal
2. Re:I hope it happens. by Immerman · 2013-07-19 05:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Do you honestly believe that once establish such surveillance would not be abused? If so I have an NSA to sell you...
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
3. Re:I hope it happens. by Beardydog · 2013-07-19 05:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If the federal government wanted to use drones for science and fire control, they shouldn't have broken trust with the American people vigorously and repeatedly, to the point that no one believes anything they say about their own motives or operations. I mentally append "and spying" to every described use they offer. "On intermodal" is a childish straw man.
4. Re:I hope it happens. by Grishnakh · 2013-07-19 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You're absolutely right that there's legitimate uses for this technology, however as Beadydog says above, the federal government has completely broken trust with the American people, so as far as I'm concerned, there's NO legitimate uses as long as they're the ones operating the drones. They simply can't be trusted.
5. Re:I hope it happens. by mcrbids · 2013-07-19 07:20 · 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.
6. Re:I hope it happens. by Wookact · 2013-07-19 08:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They often beat innocent people.
  
  The only reason they do not use the heli to spy on people, is because it is cost prohibitive. The claim is removing that cost, will allow them to abuse the tool. Much like tasers are often abused by police officers.
Proof it's U.S. Government owned by SeaFox · 2013-07-19 05:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Encouraging destruction of government property...
With a population of 550, Deer Trail, CO could suddenly find itself a bunch of empty buildings if Washington wished it.
1. Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned by Grishnakh · 2013-07-19 05:33 · 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.
2. Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-07-19 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Encouraging destruction of government property...
  With a population of 550, Deer Trail, CO could suddenly find itself a bunch of empty buildings if Washington wished it.
  At which point the government will have made those crazy ass militia types some of the most sane people in the country.
3. Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2013-07-19 06:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Then they will have another town to go after because where I am from, we will take up the cause if Deer Trail goes down.
  There's a story from Desert Storm about an Iraqi commander who, when asked why he surrendered his unit so quickly, said it was because of the B-52 strikes.
  "But your position wasn't hit by B-52's," the puzzled interrogator said.
  "No," he replied, "but I saw one that was."
  It's easy to talk big about what you would do. Once you saw the results if the US government decided to go all-out on Deer Trail, you might not be quite so inclined toward chest-thumping.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I read it wrong.... by Orleron · 2013-07-19 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

I thought they were saying a license to hunt animals using drones. THAT would be awesome! :P *pew pew* *deer falls down*
1. Re:I read it wrong.... by datavirtue · 2013-07-19 05:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  IT's COMING RIGHT FOR US!!
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
If it's done right by AliasMarlowe · 2013-07-19 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

There should be nothing left on which a bounty could be claimed.
Obviously, there is no need to buy a license, either.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Re:Inciting rebellion by Sponge+Bath · 2013-07-19 05:13 · Score: 3, Funny

We promise we're not brain-dead morons.
Good enough for me. I've got my Ted Nugent brand bow and am ready to take down a predator! Cat scratch fever! Duh duh duh! Cat scratch fever! Dur dur dur!
Drones aren't deer. by PhxBlue · 2013-07-19 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
1. Re:Drones aren't deer. by rsborg · 2013-07-19 05:45 · 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
2. Re:Drones aren't deer. by WaffleMonster · 2013-07-19 05:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better
  I can think of no better way to get all drone programs shut down post-haste.
Not a joke by smarkham01 · 2013-07-19 05:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Visit the West once or twice and you won't need to ask. Individualists were driven West by the crowds of "help me, I'm being picked on". Three are still a lot of them out there and when it comes to stopping illegal government actions, they don't joke around a lot. AC though "a completely illegal destruction of government property?" would result, but that's OK, see the illegal activities of the government have always been fair game:-). You do need a license though, the town has to know who's shooting up the sky.
1. Re:Not a joke by whistlingtony · 2013-07-19 05:41 · 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.
2. Re:Not a joke by PhxBlue · 2013-07-19 05:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Does that mean Texas is full of Help Me People?
  
  Yes. They're called state Republican legislators, and they clearly need help. :P
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Not all 'drones' are drones.... by TimO_Florida · 2013-07-19 05:29 · 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.... ;-)
All joking aside by RevWaldo · 2013-07-19 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

A friend of a friend once got shot in the leg and face while on a passenger jet because some yahoo on the ground took a shot at it while it was coming in for a landing. Taking pot shots at low-flying aircraft is something we may wanna discourage.

.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Re:Nope by Grishnakh · 2013-07-19 05:54 · Score: 5, Informative

No, they're much, much larger. Look up at a 747 flying overhead (assuming you're not near an airport and in the flight path): it's tiny, to you. Now fly one of those 4-rotor "quadrocopter" R/C toys at 20 feet over your head. It's not that small, and would be pretty easy to hit with a shotgun, certainly much easier than a clay pigeon. Clay pigeons travel faster than R/C vehicles.
Re:Cool by Kenoli · 2013-07-19 06:53 · 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