Canadian City Uses Drone To Chase Off Geese

LeadSongDog writes "The Ottawa Citizen reports on an enterprising private contractor who has been hired by a city government in Canada to drive geese off its island beaches using a small, remote-controlled drone. 'It’s proving amazingly effective, said Orléans Coun. Bob Monette. The place used to be haunted by as many as 140 geese, which can eat several pounds of grass in a day and poop out nearly as much in waste. “Now we’re down to anywhere from 15 to 20 on a daily basis,” Monette said. The weapon the city’s deployed is a “hexcopter,” a remote-controlled chopper with rotors that can hover, soar, circle and — most importantly — scoot along just above the ground, scaring the bejesus out of dozing geese. It’s operated by contractor Steve Wambolt, a former IT worker who launched his own business after one too many layoffs. “When he takes it out, they put their backs up straight and they’re watching,” Monette said. “When he starts it and it goes up off the ground, they sort of walk into a formation, and as soon as it starts moving, they all take off and they don’t come back until the next day.”'"

Comments

Unconstitutional Drone Strikes on Canindian Geese

[jimbolauski]

Another example of government tyranny.

Re:Unconstitutional Drone Strike on Canadian Geese

[maliqua]

this isn't affecting the migration just dispersing the floc from a beach/park there is no shortage of available space on the river or bay for them to move on too, they just hang out there because people leave stuff for them to eat, if anything this is beneficial to the birds also to keep them a little further away from the public

"Drone" vs "R/C Plane"?

[RevWaldo]

I'm sensing a lot of people use the word 'drone' where 'R/C Plane', a decades-old technology, is more appropriate, simply because it sounds cooler. Is the a technical dividing line between the two?

.

Re:"Drone" vs "R/C Plane"?

[chuckinator]

It's a different in regulations requiring additional flight system equipment and verification testing. RC aircraft are only permitted a flight ceiling below 400 ft and the operator must maintain visual line of sight with the craft at all times. Unmanned aircraft are allowed a much higher flight ceiling, but they must follow all FAA rules and guidelines regarding traffic control as other manned aircraft. However, the FAA is not yet allowing drones to operate in the same airspace with manned traffic and must have a specially defined flight zone that their operations are limited to. That will change come 2015 when the FAA has said that they will allow a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft traffic with priority status going to the manned systems. Also, unmanned aircraft must have the full suite of required avionics instruments, must pass rigorous series of flight tests, and must have the same passive radar detection and flight radio transponder required for manned aircraft.

Re:Unconstitutional Drone Strike on Canadian Geese

[TWiTfan]

You won't think Canada Geese are so much of a goddamned treasure when you live in an area where they stay year-round, grow to flocks of hundreds, poison every waterway in sight, and leave a carpet of goose-shit everywhere. They're a fucking nuisance in a LOT of places, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act desperately needs to be amended to make it legal to kill the fucking things. They have WAY overpopulated in large portions of North America.

Re:Are we at peak drone?

[gstoddart]

It's a tsunami of hyperbole.

Now you're just exaggerating. ;-)

Drone....not really?

[argStyopa]

Is it just me, or are we starting to use "drone" for pretty much anything that doesn't have a pilot actually sitting in it today?

AFAIK, "drone" is really an autonomous vehicle that for at least SOME of its flight time, it's not directly under pilot control.

I mean, it sure SOUNDS a lot cooler to say they use a "drone" than "a big radio control plane".

Re:Unconstitutional Drone Strikes on Canindian Gee

[xevioso]

While amusing in this case, this treaty would likely not apply.

The statute in the treaty makes it unlawful without a waiver to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill or sell birds listed therein ("migratory birds"). This includes the Canadian Goose. Piloting a drone into the middle of a stationary flock of geese constitutes none of these things. If the drone operator actually followed the birds, then yes, that would be "pursuing", but simply scaring the birds by flying into the midst of them as they are eating and pooping and doing other bird things wouldn't break the treaty, as far as I can tell.

Re:Unconstitutional Drone Strike on Canadian Geese

[Baloroth]

Do you have any idea how many millions of square miles in the US (much less Canada) are untouched by humans? Well over 90% of the US is undeveloped land. No, the geese aren't going to the "few locations untouched by humans", they're flocking to locations occupied by humans because humans chase away their predators and keep climate variations (especially during winter) to a minimum, to the point where many geese are no longer even bothering to migrate. Chasing them away from human habitations would do more to restore their natural patterns than to disrupt them.

Plus, geese are vicious bastards who'll attack and chase animals much much larger than themselves. And they poop like crazy.

Re:Unconstitutional Drone Strikes on Canindian Gee

[Strider-]

They are Canadian Geese so the Constitution doens't apply

Eh? They're loud, obnoxious, and leave shit everywhere. Clearly they're American. ;)